|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 03 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 03 January 2002
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 07:55 am |        | "There is also a resemblance between the Galashiels letter
(quoted above) and the diary. Shirley Harrison even quotes
Bill Waddell, a former curator of Scotland Yard Black Museum
and a man with a lifetime's experience of forgery as saying
they are one and the same."
Can we have the exact page reference for the quote by Bill Waddell on the "Galashiels Letter?"
"Then there is Maybrick's 'natural' handwriting discovered in
the bible given to Sarah Anne, which also matches the
handwriting of other ripper documents."
Are we so very certain that this inscription is by Maybrick? It would turn, I think, on whether the birth-date mentioned is in fact the true birthday of Sarah Robertson. I have left a message for Keith Skinner concerning that.
"We know he played games with his names,
we know he travelled to America and we can't find his name
on the passenger lists, so what name do you think he
travelled by? Diego Laurenz perhaps?"
Quote from the passenger list of the SS "City of Chester" sailed 28th September 1874 Liverpool via Queenstown to New York: "James Maybrick aged 34, Merchant, England." Sarak Robertson did not travel with him.
Read the words of Anne Graham as quoted in the books and assure us that everything she has said was the truth. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:13 am | | Hi Peter,
You write, regarding an alleged Ripper letter:
"And yet that letter showed a clear connection to one written by James Maybrick."
What "clear connection?" Where is there such a "clear connection?" Please demonstrate this "clear connection."
You write:
"And therefore it would bother me more if the diary matched the handwriting of JM's will exactly."
Because? So, according to this logic, since the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's, it's Maybrick's. Fascinating. Of course. It must be Maybrick's.
Silly me, I would of thought that if the handwriting didn't match Maybrick's it was probably not Maybrick's. But what do I know?
You write:
"I have studied some of the letter formations myself on Maybrick's letters and letters allegedly sent by JTR, and the resemblances are there for all to see."
No, they're not. That's why so few people see them.
And you say:
"Then there is Maybrick's 'natural' handwriting discovered in the bible given to Sarah Anne, which also matches the handwriting of other ripper documents."
No. Not a single handwriting expert (including Sue Iremonger, by the way) nor any scientist nor any independent analyst of any sort has ever said that any of Maybrick's handwriting matches any alleged Ripper documents or the diary. That, still, is the record.
You write:
"You say it doesn't match Maybrick's, I say it does match some of Maybrick's..."
It's not enough for you or Paul to just say "See, it matches. Doesn't it?" It has to be verified. Someone with some skill has to confirm the match. Otherwise it remains wishful thinking. And no one has offered any such confirmation.
You write, concerning the matchbox:
"John, all I want to say on this little artefact is that attention is brought to it in the diary for a reason."
Attention is brought to many of the items on the police list of Eddowes' possessions. In the same verse, the diarist mentions the cigarette case, the knife, the tea, the sugar, the matchbox, the pawn tickets (indirectly), the handkerchief, etc. The reason the tin matchbox is in the diary is because it was listed among a victim's possessions. It was not held back by Abberline or by anyone. It appears in two separate papers of the times as a "match box."
The diary does not say it was a clue or that it was held back (it just doesn't) -- but if it did, it would be demonstrably wrong.
Once again, you write:
"Again John, 'Sir Jim' is in the diary for a reason, and if the diary is proven to be a forgery then I fully expect our forger to confess that he got the idea by looking at Trevor Christie's notes."
And once again I remind you that there is nothing at all in Christie's notes that says anything about the real Maybrick calling himself "Sir Jim" or anyone else ever calling him "Sir Jim" or he ever knowing he was called "Sir Jim." Nothing. And the phrase appears in the diary quite logically, all of its own accord, out of a simple literary conceit about the main character being knighted. There is no record of this fiction ever being fact or even ever being thought of as fact by anyone.
You write:
"We know he played games with his names, we know he travelled to America and we can't find his name on the passenger lists, so what name do you think he travelled by?"
Peter Birchwood has already proven you wrong about this one, too. But this is the problem. Paul Feldman just says stuff. You believe him. The stuff turns out either to be pure and random speculation, wishful thinking, or simply not true. But you consider it evidence. It's not. Paul's book is filled with such nonsensical claims, all in the labored attempt to turn a fiction into history. But the record remains completely unlinked to Maybrick at every turn. That's why we have to hear stories about MPD and holding matchboxes back and dreams of real uses of "Sir Jim" and Maybrick not knowing what his brother did for a living and dreams of authentic Ripper letters and mysteriously forced handwriting matches -- none of which have any link or correspondence with any actual record.
This is not way to make a case for any document's authenticity.
Peter, there were less than half a dozen editions of Crashaw published in England the entire second half of the nineteenth century. He was not a major figure, not a member of the canon, not taught regularly in school and was a poet especially read in Catholic circles by that time. There is abundant historical and documentary evidence of all of these things. There is a record. The record argues against the likelihood of any "James Maybrick" casually quoting one line from the middle of one of Crashaw's lesser known works -- a translation of an obscure Latin hymn, no less -- in a diary where no other line of poetry is quoted anywhere. But that documentary record aside, knowing such a line of Crashaw's in the late 19th century would have been not at all like knowing a line from Lennon and McCartney today, whether you studied them or not. The comparison is so completely invalid as to be ludicrous. Lennon and McCartney are two of the most popular songwriters in the world. If you want a comparison, it would be like you casually quoting a line from the middle of a poem by Thomas Traherne. Who's Thomas Traherne, you ask? A poet of the same period who has about the same status today that Richard Crashaw had in the 19th Century. Can you jot me a line of Traherne off the top of your head, Peter? No fair, looking it up -- it's supposed to be written suddenly into your diary, remember, in the middle of your memories of murder.
Then you write:
"The provenance for the diary continues to suck? Why don't you just come straight out with it and accuse Anne Graham of being a liar?"
Because these are two completely different claims. Even if Anne is telling the truth, the provenance continues to suck, because her story remains completely unverified and it has, to support it, not a single piece of historical, documentary, anecdotal, or material evidence whatsoever. Not even a single verified independent account of the diary ever having existed prior to 1992. Nothing. And Paul's "theories" about family relationships based on the similarities of faces in old photographs is a joke (thought typical).
No one has ever been able to produce one single statement, piece of paper, or anything else that would even suggest, independently and in any verifiable way, that this book ever existed prior to 1992. That's what I call a sucky provenance. And this is true whether Anne's story is true or not.
Again, Peter, you write:
"The fact is John that the diary does exist and you have in no way at all even remotely proven it to be a forgery."
And again I remind you that the diary needs to be verified, not proven false. The diary is a "found" document trying to establish its authenticity. It has not offered even one material, recordable, documentary or historical link to its supposed author, and therefore it remains a fictional document until someone can begin, that's right, begin to authenticate it in any way whatsoever. All of your fictions and all of Paul's ellipses and rhetorical question and dreams of possibilities are not authentication. They are not even evidence in support of the diary. And so, the burden remains on the finders to prove their case, otherwise the document remains a found object of the 20th Century with no history, no provenance, and therefore no legitimate claim to authenticity.
You are absolutely correct, Peter, that I will not and cannot name the person who wrote this diary. I, unlike you, am willing and ready to admit that.
I also admit I do not know where or why this was written. Nor do you.
You're wrong about the last one, though. The match box and "Sir Jim" and the "treble event" references are all simply and easily explained within the context of a fictional document (and I have done so, repeatedly) and, more importantly, none of them have any link whatsoever to the real James Maybrick and you have offered not a single link between them and the real James Maybrick and consequently such dreamt-of links remain, as you say, "figments of your imagination."
Now then, as to the September 17th letter. You do know that at least one expert has remarked that it was written "with a ball point pen." This might be a problem if you want to claim that the real James Maybrick wrote it. Also, do you know where and how it was allegedly "found" (planted, most probably)?
The finder claimed that he discovered it in 1988 in between two folder sheets that had become 'stuck together'. This was in the HO/144/220/A49301C files and not in the MEPO 3/142 Letters file (a seemingly more logical and explainable place to have discovered/planted it). It's provenance, too, is terrible.
But putting all of that aside, let me say one thing about the diary's (and Paul F's) claims concerning letter writing. It is very important.
Let's add them up.
The 'diarist' claims authorship of the "Dear Boss" letter, the "saucy Jacky" postcard, the Goulston Street graffiti and the "From hell" letter and now the "17th September letter" and the "Scottish letter" as well. So for the 'diarist' to be the Ripper ALL these communications HAVE to be written by the killer. This alone should give it away as an ill- considered forgery. These items are, themselves, not only in various and different handwritings, they are in handwritings completely separate and different from the diary's and completely separate and different from James Maybrick's writing as well. So now Maybrick has to have used one hand for the diary, a set of different hands for several of his many Ripper missives (and still another hand for his own verifiable signature and business letters) and each and all of these writings would have had to be from the real Jack the Ripper.
Yup. I'm convinced.
And the idea that you can read the phrase "sending Central another" and determine that it must mean the alleged "found" letter of the 17th specifically is still more evidence that what we have going on here is the bending of history to fit the diary (that's the wrong-way 'round) and reading as wishing.
I'm glad we have the chance, Peter, to go over all of this for our readership. I hope it is helping people make a careful, thoughtful, patient, and logical choice concerning the likely authenticity of this document. I would also urge all of those who are interested to read through the "Analysis of the Diary Text" board as well, where they will find an even more detailed and thorough reading, page by page, of these entries and their "relationship" to the actual historical record.
Good luck to your team, Peter.
I am heading back for day two on the course.
All the best,
--John
PS: Peter, I see the match was a 1-1 draw. And Man. Utd. squeaked that out at the very end. Don't feel bad. My favorite English football club is way down in the 10th spot in the standings. And so, every now and then, I have to drink one for Newcastle Utd.... |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 12:55 pm | | John O.
Football first; Ripper later.
The referee for that game was an absolute disgrace. Robbie Keane raised his hands to Beckham and did not get sent off, which is a clear contravention of all the laws of the game.
Their player was offside when he received the ball for their goal. And statistically John, we had 58% possession of the ball, hit the woodwork once and did not let up at all any time in the second half. Oh, and we also had the ball in the back of their net, only for the referee to inexplicably pull the game back to our half for a free kick to us, which he somehow interpreted as giving us the advantage. Err, excuse me? You can't have that goal you just scored but you can have this free kick? Newcastle United John? Any shred of respect that I ever had for you has just flown out of the window.
Now to the Ripper:
MaryLynn: Get back in your box, this is a message board for the ripper discussions, not a soap box for twisted people who want to be so politically correct that we can't even have blackboards in schools anymore. That's enough of you, I don't want to hear anymore of your nonsense.
Peter Birchwood: P.256 Shirley's book, that should answer your question. Unbelievably Peter you then say the writing in the bible given to Sarah Anne may not be James'! Priceless! You really are a card Peter!
Now then to Johnny...........
'Clear connection'. It lies in the similarity of the hands John. End of story. But you won't ever see that similarity because you don't believe it exists. 'nuff said.
The reason I would be more bothered if the handwriting of the diary matched the will of JM exactly is because that would then indicate a copy of the will, or a forgery based on the will. I have never claimed that because the writing doesn't look like Maybricks then Maybrick must have written the diary, so John please stop repeating that claim. Either that or get yourself a new joke book.
"Silly me, I would of thought......."
should read
"Silly me, I would have thought......."
John, for all your arguments that neither Paul Feldman nor I has been able to prove the diary to be genuine, you have not made great inroads into proving it false. The diary exists. It is tangible. We should be entitled to speculate on it's author, but not according to the great John Omlor, who 'logically' says 'before you can speculate on the diary you must first prove it genuine'. Now there's twisted logic for you! It's only by debating the diary that we stand a chance of proving it genuine or otherwise.
I'm not going to stop debating it just because you say it hasn't been proven genuine, that would be absurd!
And who is this 'real James Maybrick' to whom you keep referring? So, by your logic John, because the diary shows no proof of having been written by the RJM then we are not allowed to investigate the possibility of it having been so? I didn't think so.
"Sending Central another" John, proves that the diarist was either aware of a prior communication or was guessing. Of course I would be interested if someone could prove that 17 September letter a forgery and so should you be, because the diarist makes reference to it.
And John, don't refer people to the 'analysis of the diary text' with all it's Omlorisms and Birchwoodisms and a few Harrisisms. Allow people to read the books, see the evidence and make their own minds up, or else I may have to do my own analysis of the text.........heaven forbid you would let me do that John.
The simple truth remains that the diary does have a provenance John, one given to it my Anne Graham. It is the same sort of provenance my father gave me when he handed me an old book by E. W. Hornung, Raffles - the amateur cracksman. Fine, there were no witnesses, but so what? There was Billy Graham of course, but that just won't do for you.
In a nutshell, if the diary is a forgery, then Anne has lied and you and your band of merry men should stand up and say so in a court of law. Let Anne launch a libel action and see who wins.
By the way John, I recently posted on a different board that I would like to see some DNA testing done on the envelopes and the gum on the stamps, the bits that would have been licked. I'm sure there is ample DNA left from Maybrick's grave or surviving family members for the claim he wrote the letters to be disproved. We just need you to stump up a few thousand dollars. Are you up for it?
Next weekend the might Man U take on Chris George's team - Liverpool. Having already been soundly thrashed by Newcastle and having a defence more leaky than a sieve I fear for my sanity after that one, so wish me well.
Chris, where are you?
Best regards to all, regardless of your RACE, religion, creed, colour hiv status, fascination with political correctness or the colour of your underwear.
Take Care
Peter |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 02:59 pm | | Hi Peter,
We encourage new posters to the message boards. MaryLynn's point was a valid one. If you don't like it, ignore her, but don't tell anyone what constitutes enough from them because you don't get to decide that.
Peace,
Ally |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 03:58 pm | | Has anyone thought that the Crashaw quote might have been taken from a dictionary of quotations ?
Think of it. If the writer of our Diary wanted to put a bit of nice poetry in , what would be simpler than looking in the Index of a Dictionary of Quotations for a quote about death ? It wouldn't make a difference then how many editions of Crashaw had been published , as long as the writer of the Dictionary had included the quote it could have been accessed.
Simon |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 04:08 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sorry about the terrible officiating. I didn't see the match, only read the on-line review, but I know that I hate it when that happens here. And please be assured that my support for Newcastle is strictly from a distance and in honor of their colors, what little I know of their history, and, most importantly, their beer.
Now then...
You write:
"I have never claimed that because the writing doesn't look like Maybricks then Maybrick must have written the diary."
But you are making that weird and wonderful claim Peter, when you say that the fact that the handwriting does not match means it is more likely that Maybrick wrote it than it would if the handwriting matched exactly. And that's just what you said in your last post.
The writing doesn't match Maybrick's. There is no way you can twist this around and say that this makes you feel better about the diary's authenticity that you would if the handwriting did match. That just makes no logical sense. And that's because the simplest and most likely explanation for the handwriting not matching remains that Maybrick didn't write it.
You then insist:
"John, for all your arguments that neither Paul Feldman nor I has been able to prove the diary to be genuine, you have not made great inroads into proving it false."
Once again, the diary is a found document. It appeared in the 20th century and claimed to be something from another place and another time. The burden of proof therefore falls on those who advance that document as authentic to verify its authenticity. Otherwise, it remains just what it is, a found document of the 20th Century. And speculating all you like about who might or might not have written it, without any reliable or material evidence to verify the thing and its authorship is not in any way establishing a case. For that, there must be at least some reliable, material evidence linking the document to the supposed author and to the historical record. There is not.
Oh, and I almost forgot, simply pointing at two documents and saying that the handwriting seems similar is not "establishing a clear connection." Not in any way, shape, or form, under any circumstances, under any rules of evidence or or of historical research or of reasoned argument. Especially when you do it without any independent examination or verification by any experts or skilled personnel. It's just a wish at that point. And, therefore, that is what your "connection" remains. And this is the way Paul's arguments too often work. He just says stuff he wants to be true and then hopes people agree. But nothing is ever properly established or supported in any way by any evidence linking it to the real historical record, and therefore it remains the shallowest sort of speculation and wish-fulfillment.
And no one has called for you to stop debating the diary, Peter. Just the opposite. I have called for you or Paul or someone to link the thing to the historical record in some material, verifiable way or to the real James Maybrick (who is he? you know, the guy that actually lived, as opposed to the character in the diary) in some significant and reliable way and to establish at least the beginning of reliable and verifiable provenance for it. No one is telling you not to debate it, Peter, just to actually tie it to some history prior to 1992.
By the way, if the 17th of September letter really was written with a ball point pen, then I think it's probably a forgery. I'll let Chris speak to its status as such (since he's the letters expert). I do know that its provenance, like the diary's, is horrible.
You then chastise me:
"And John, don't refer people to the 'analysis of the diary text' with all it's Omlorisms and Birchwoodisms and a few Harrisisms."
I don't remember Melvin ever contributing to our analysis, Peter, or Peter Birchwood very much either, but I will refer people to anything I like, thank you.
The extended analysis of the diary text, page by page, is available right here at this site, over on a board called "Analysis of the Diary Text." It is careful, deliberate and considered and I think useful to anyone who might want to read it.
That being said, I agree absolutely that people should have the fun of reading Paul Feldman's book -- especially if they read it with a serious and critical eye and remain aware of how many ellipses, rhetorical questions, hinted suggestions and simple wishes take the place of actual, logically established and soundly developed reliable conclusions. I think the prose in that book is the best case I know of for how weak the scholarly argument for the authenticity of the diary actually is.
Concerning the provenance: Billy Graham's comments cannot, of course, be considered independent verification of Anne Graham's story, since he was, at the time of the interview, neither an impartial nor a disinterested party. Anne's story (which has changed several times) suggests that this book existed before 1992. That is the first claim that must be verified if the diary is to actually have a real provenance. No one has done any such verification. In fact, no one has been able to find any evidence at all, not even a single piece or document or account, that suggests this diary existed before 1992. That means that this diary's provenance sucks.
Oh, and just for the record, Anne has lied. Mike has lied. This must be true because Anne has said conflicting things about where the book came from, as has Mike. Anne first said that Mike came home with it after Tony gave it to him and she didn't know what it was when they opened it in front of Caroline. But Anne later said she gave it to Tony and so she knew in advance what it was that Mike had brought home. So yes, at one point, Anne must have lied.
But that is not the issue. The issue is that, whether she is telling the truth about the book's history now or not, it has not been in any way supported by any evidence historically and there is still no record of it existing prior to 1992 and consequently its provenance continues to suck.
As to DNA, Peter, I would love it if someone could get usable DNA off any of the alleged Ripper letters. And I'd have no objection to testing it for Maybrick family DNA either, if they agreed. I'm not sure such a thing is still possible and I certainly don't have the money to pay for it, but I would not oppose any research, scientific or otherwise, to prove who did and did not write this book.
Tomorrow is football here, Peter, and my Bucs (who also suck at the moment, just like the provenance of the diary) play a division rival and I'll be there cursing, I fear.
All the best,
--John
PS: Hi Simon -- The particular line in question from Crashaw comes from one of his lesser known works, a translation of a Latin hymn actually, and is a fragment from the middle of a stanza in the middle of the poem and so would likely not appear listed in any Dictionary of Quotations. (It does not appear in any of those I have checked, including the Oxford right here on my desk.) Unless, of course, you found a very specific dictionary of quotations from 17th Century English poets, and even then, I suspect this one still wouldn't be listed. If anything, the poem's opening stanza might appear in such a specialized volume, but not this fragment. And the line isn't really about death, by the way.
Once again, for the record:
The poem in question was one of Crashaw's reworkings of a sacred Latin Hymn (the "Stabat Mater"). It was published with the rest of Crashaw's sacred poems in 1649 and reprinted in 1652 and has been available ever since. It is a part of Crashaw's work that was most closely read by Catholic scholars. The stanza from which the "O costly intercourse..." lines are drawn is interesting when completed. It is a stanza that might resonate for some who have spent time thinking about the Ripper and his mind and I wish the diarist (whoever they might have been) would have continued the full citation. Perhaps they did not have it available. Here it is:
"O costly intercourse
Of deaths, and worse,
Divided loves. While son and mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another;
Quick deaths that grow
And gather, as they come and goe:
His Nailes write swords in her, which soon her heart
Payes back, with more than their own smart;
Her Swords, still growing with his pain,
Turn Speares, and straight come home again." |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 04:39 pm | | C:
 17sep88 (1).jpg |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 04:45 pm | | Hi, John and Peter:
In regard to the alleged 17 September 1888 letter, I quoted Stewart Evans' view that the letter is absurd and viewed with suspicion at the Public Record Office. A clear reason why the letter is viewed with suspicion is because it is not stamped with official markings the way the other letters, regarded to be genuine, are. That is, if you look in Stewart's book, the genuine letters are stamped with a date stamp containing the words, "METROPOLITAN POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT" and a small oval stamp containing the words "Public Record Office" around a small crown and a docket number, proving the receipt of the document at Scotland Yard and thereafter at the PRO. The suspicious 17 September letter any of these official stamps. Moreover, many of the real letters contain Donald Swanson's initials, usually in the top left corner. No such initials appear on the questioned letter, as shown above.
The above image of the letter was sent to me by Stewart, who when he sent it to me some months back stated that it was a "photo of the fake 17 September 1888 letter." Naturally, the new book by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner begins with the 24 September 1888 letter which preceded the first "Dear Boss" letter. The 24 September letter is recognized by Stewart as being the earliest received letter allegedly from the killer now in the official files.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 07:20 pm | | Allegria
Why is it valid for MaryLynn to come onto a Jack The Ripper message board and chastise somebody (probably me) for a misguided use of the term 'race'? As far as I'm concerned Americans are a race of people - they have a culture and a history, and if that may not fit the accepted dictionary definition of the word 'race', which I frankly can't be bothered looking up, then I'm sure it at least fits the accepted meaning of the word in the minds of ignorant people like myself. This all smacks of the 'unconscious' racism claim which my very own British Government tried to tar half the population with before the last general election just because some of us could see past their pseudo-liberalism. If someone wants to take issue with myself or another regarding the use of the term 'race', then surely it is best done via a personal e mail and not in an area meant for discussion on JTR?
Chris T. George
That's a great image you have posted there, very effective, but reduced slightly by the fact that we have all seen it before. And now the 17 September letter has a terrible provenance too! Is there to be no hope for Paul Feldman? I haven't seen the 24 September letter so I can't comment on it, any chance of another one of your fancy images, but I do know that the writer of the 25 September letter wrote of using the 'trade name'. What exactly do you think that meant? And is the 24 September letter in the same handwriting as the 25 September letter and it's postcard?
John
Regarding the handwriting argument, I can see your reasoning, but just because there is a dog doesn't mean that there has to be a cat, likewise if there is a heaven it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a hell. And just because the handwriting in the diary may not look like James Maybrick's does not mean that there is a forger.
I do believe there is evidence of a connection between Maybrick's handwriting and that in a letter signed Jack The Ripper. Some people have gone so far as saying they are identical. Why don't you accept that?
As far as I am aware John, Anne Graham has not lied. She told the truth. She has never changed her story about giving the diary to Tony. And I wasn't aware that she was in the house when Mike opened the parcel, but I believe that Caroline was - and remember she told PHF and (I think) Keith that as soon as Mike read the document he was straight on the phone to Tony questioning what it was and where it came from. All that in front of his own daughter, surely that once and for all dispels the 'Mike for forger' myth?
Anne didn't lie because she didn't have to. How has Anne benefited from lying? Where is her country mansion? Her fleet of luxury cars? They don't exist! Anne told the truth and she should be accepted as a witness to the diary's provenance until you can prove otherwise - which is a problem to you because Anne can really dent all the 'modern forgery' theories as she saw the diary in the 1960's.
I'm actually beginning to like that Crashaw quote now John, that bloke really knew what he was about, maybe I'll be of a mind to go and find some more of his work. Doesn't the reference to 'Intercourse of deaths and worse' mean - and I am speculating here - 'idle chat'? I.E. Maybe he was using it as a message to someone to stop being so negative, like this - "Stop talking about dying and all the things that happen after that!" I haven't a clue how that would help us in the search for the Ripper!
So that's settled then, we're going to test the letters and envelopes and stamps for DNA? Great, I'll start the fund with a couple of quid, what are you going to contribute?
Your arguments against the 17 September letter are not valid in my eyes, not until you prove it a forgery. But why was it placed in the files John? Well, if the diary is a forgery then that's your reason isn't it? So whoever forged the diary placed the letter in the file right? Go on John, go and unmask that forger!
Except.......wait a minute! The diary is written in diamine ink, according to you lot, and the letter is written in ball point pen, again according to you.....so, oops, no connection with the forger there. Paul Feldman is convinced the diary refers to an earlier communication than the 25 September letter. He thought it was the 17 September letter. What do you now think the diarist was referring to?
Peace Love and Harmony
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Hi Peter,
You write:
"And just because the handwriting in the diary may not look like James Maybrick's does not mean that there is a forger."
Well, it certainly does not mean that the handwriting that does not look like James Maybrick's is James Maybrick's. That's for sure. In fact, it suggests that it isn't. And if it isn't, then there must be a forger. That's pretty simple.
You write:
"I do believe there is evidence of a connection between Maybrick's handwriting and that in a letter signed Jack The Ripper. Some people have gone so far as saying they are identical."
But there is no connection. Just saying that you or "some people" think the handwriting is similar is not establishing a connection. No way, no how, not by any rules of evidence or rational argument or historical research or document studies. It's just not. And Paul saying they look identical to him is not establishing a connection either. So until someone with some credentials and some skill analyzes the relevant documents and says that the handwritings are even similar (let alone a match) the connection remains completely unestablished. That's just the simple truth. And no one who is qualified has ever said such a thing. Not ever.
Here, once again, are the facts:
Not a single handwriting expert (including Sue Iremonger, by the way) nor any scientist nor any independent analyst of any sort has ever said that any of Maybrick's handwriting matches any alleged Ripper documents or the diary. That, still, is the record.
Incidentally, I believe that Anne did first say that she did not know where Tony got the diary that he gave to Mike. She did not come out and admit that she gave Tony the diary until later in the case.
And I'm sorry to say that Mike's allegedly rushing to phone Tony to ask about the diary does not prove he did not forge the document (and I don't happen to think that he did, but I want to be fair and honest about what can and cannot be claimed, even if it goes against my own position). Mike's story about calling Tony right away is just a story and has not been verified by any independent means. We have no idea what Mike did or what he said to Tony and we can't trust anything Mike says he did because we know that he lies all the time. So, no, that doesn't clear Mike in and of itself.
And Anne can't be the witness to the diary's provenance, since she is the one claiming it. It, her story, has to be independently verified for the document to have any reliable provenance. Even if she never made a cent off the diary, this would still be the case. She is an interested party, the interested party, and it is her story that has to be supported with outside historical evidence, documentation, and support before anyone can claim that the diary provenance does not completely suck.
And no one has done that at all.
By the way, Peter, still there is not one piece of paper, not one witness, not one single fact, not even one suggestion of this document's having existed before 1992. That's why the provenance still sucks.
I won't comment on your reading of Crashaw, Peter, except to remind you that it is a hymn to the Virgin Mary upon thoughts of the crucifixion and upon her suffering.
On a completely different matter -- Peter, if you can find me a qualified expert who says he can get usable DNA from the alleged Ripper letters and that he can get permission to get some Maybrick DNA, and he can compare the two and get a result, I'm in for fifty bucks.
On the 17th letter... Hold on there just a minute. I would not claim that the letter had anything to do with the Maybrick diary. Not at all. Ripper hoaxes are not unusual things. This letter, mysteriously appearing precisely at the time of the centennial, with all the attention the case was drawing, turned up freshly stuck between two pages in the wrong place in the files and completely unmarked with the usual and required markings of genuine police records, without the proper initials, without any history behind it and apparently written in modern ink. It is, I suspect, a forgery. But that has nothing to do with the diary. There are lots and lots of forged Ripper letters. This is only a recent one.
Unfortunately, Paul Feldman chose to use it to his own devices because it seemed convenient to him. It sucks for him that it is likely to be a forgery, since he wanted to claim that James Maybrick wrote it back in 1888. So, Paul being Paul, he claimed it anyway. Why let the historical record or the documentary evidence or the missing provenance or the missing markings or the anachronistic ink or, indeed, the likely truth get in the way of a good story?
As to the diarist, all he says is that he plans to "send Central another" (another letter, we suppose). The diarist / forger would not have to know of any specific existing letter whatsoever to write this. Of course not. If there was a letter, great. If there wasn't, no problem. It could just be assumed that a letter had been lost, like so many of the files. (The fact that many Ripper files were lost has long been common knowledge, of course.) There was no risk at all here, no need to guess right, and it was an obvious line for a faux-Ripper to write amidst his supposed self-amusement. The line does not surprise me. It's as predictable as everything else in this melodramatic creation.
I love all the "ha ha's" too, for instance.
I think that addresses your most recent points. Over here Paul and Stewart and the rest are on the Discovery channel's rerun of the An Ongoing Mystery special. I think I'll go watch.
All the best,
--John
PS: Peter -- "trade name" -- a name people use on the job to identify themselves and their profession i.e. -- Mottle, the tailor. or.... |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 08:49 pm | | C:
 24sep88a.jpg |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 08:55 pm | | Peter:
Above is page 1 of the 24 September 1888 letter. I don't know what keeps happening to my messages, maybe the image is so large it crowds it out.
The point of course with this genuine 24 September 1888 letter, which has a handwriting different yet again to the Dear Boss letter written the following day and to the fraudulent alleged "17 September" letter, is that it bears prominently on it the Metropolitan Police date stamp, which the forgery lacks. Page 2 of the letter follows showing the Public Record Office stamp and docket number, both of which are missing from the so-called 17 September letter. As was the image of the 17 September hoax letter, these images were kindly provided provided by Stewart P. Evans.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 08:56 pm | |  |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:12 pm | | Thanks Chris,
So now we are to assume how many different letters and postcards in how many different hands were all written by our would-be Ripper diarist? I think I've lost count. The "Dear Boss" letter, the two markedly different ones we have seen on these boards today (I think), the Saucy Jacky postcard, the Scottish letter, the "From Hell" letter, the graffiti, and, of course, the personal diary itself? All by the same person (despite the obvious differences throughout), who happened to write his own letters and sign his own name (according to the established record) in a noticeably different hand than all of them, including his own diary? One guy wrote all of these, including the diary and the Maybrick letters and all these significantly different Ripper letters? And we are to assume that all of these letters are really from the killer, too?
Well, no wonder the specter of MPD reared its head in Paul's pictures section. 
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:57 pm | | Hi John:
Of course no one except Paul Feldman, and by extension, Peter Wood, could claim that all these pieces of writing were written by one person. The book by Evans and Skinner on the JtR letters opens ones eyes to the hundreds of letters, most in different writing styles and hands, that one begins to realize the absurdity of claiming common authorship. However, in his eagerness to further Maybrick's candidacy, Feldman does make such claims on no basis at all except as you have indicated, wish fulfillment.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 11:26 pm | | Peter,
Mary Lynn disagreed with you. She is allowed to do that. She did not tell you to leave the boards and shut up. She is not allowed to do that. Neither are you. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 04:02 am | | Morning All,
I only save the latest batch of posts to this board when copying them to pass on to Keith Skinner. But at least I can re-post those for everyone here now. Unfortunately, if people want every post I sent Keith back to 27th October, it means asking him to return them to me so I can type them all up. And I don't think I'll have time this new year to do so. Let me know your thoughts.
And thanks to Stephen, Johnno and anyone else who helped get this wonderful site back up and running so quickly.
Love,
Caz
Now here are all the posts I managed to save. Any icons used originally won't be there now or changed to simple smileys, but everything else should remain exactly as it was posted.
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 09:06 am
Peter,
Complacency breeds failure.
Leeds and the diary...wheres Carps?
Monty 
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 09:58 am
John,
I hear your motor running. You are on, maybe a hurricane at Pat O'Brien's as well. The perfect scenario for me would be the Saint's getting the wild card and meeting St. Louis for one last time. New Orleans and St. Louis have always hated each other. Cain and Able got along better than these two teams. Actually my two favorite teams are New Orleans and anybody playing St. Louis. So even if your Bucs get in....Go Bucs!
As far as the diary goes, it seems to me the person(s) with the most to gain from its publication and/or publicity would pretty much anser the question. Gain does not have to be monetary. Gain could be fame. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. In all my years I have only once seen a crime that could be one massive conspiracy involving the gambling industry in Louisiana, and if it was a conspiracy it was a very sloppy one. The more people involved in a project, such as this, means the more loose ends that have to be accounted for. I am pretty sure that I can fake Jimmy Hoffa's or Lizzy Borden's diary in one night over a couple of beers and pretzels, especially if all I had to was write 63 pages.
Excerpt from the upcoming O.J. Simpson Diary.......
Dear Diary,
Nicole pissed me off so bad today. I don't know what to do. The only peace I find is in eating candy from this pez dispenser I have had since my youth.
Peace,
Scott
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 10:30 am
Hi Scott,
I understand what you are saying about gain. The problem is, we might not know all the players yet, or even the possible players. Consequently, we'd have no way of knowing whether there was someone out there who thought, at one point, that writing a fake Ripper diary might be a cool idea -- that they might make something off the deal, etc. -- and then, either upon seeing the reception from a safe distance or because of other circumstances, withdrew farther back out of the picture.
We can't tell who might have, at one point, stood to gain the most. And in terms of fame, the problem is more complicated, since to really pull off the hoax, the writer would have to remain anonymous. They could play the role of discoverer, of course, the way Mike has -- but if they had help, then what would be the motive for the helpers, who would have to be both anonymous and out of the money loop?
Only Mike and Anne have seen anything at all from all of this -- only they have achieved any notoriety (even if it is not the most flattering sort) and only they have received any funds (except for Feldman and Shirley and Robert and company, but they are not suspects). But unless they did the entire project all by themselves, the problem of motive remains incomplete --since why would anyone help them for no reward? And if they did do it all by themselves, who held the pen? And why do those who happen to know Mike and Anne, to have dealt with them personally, find the idea of the two of them doing this all alone from start to finish so completely unlikely? And why is there still no real evidence linking them to the actual production of the book other than Mike's ownership of the Sphere volume?
The search for motive and gain seems not, in this case, to answer all our necessary questions.
And I wouldn't be too sure about how easy this all was. Remember, we have two well known criminal cases involved in this diary, the Maybrick case and the Ripper case -- each thoroughly studied, each with a well-documented history and a cadre of experts and enthusiasts behind them and the document would have to stand up to the scrutiny of all those people. It would, at the very least, have to avoid simple historical inaccuracies and linguistic anachronisms (it has to be a 19th century document) and to pass the scientific tests (or at least frustrate them) just to see the light of day. The names and places and order of things would have to at least pass muster. I'm not sure one night and a few beers could make this all happen. Even RJ and Peter and those who are the most critical of the diary's complexity agree that a few books are going to have to be referenced over some time. And, if it was just Mike and Anne all alone, who held the pen? Why is our investigator friend Melvin so sure that neither of their handwriting matches the diary?
I think I might be careful about too quickly dismissing this book as the simple result of a single night over drinks or as a quick 63 pages just jotted into a genuine Victorian scrapbook (which would also have to be acquired -- like the right pen nibs and some passable ink). I agree it's mostly cheap melodrama, but I don't think it was quite as easy for one or two people to throw together as you suggest.
I agree that it's possible that the person who stood most to gain from the project is a good suspect. Trouble is, we don't yet know who all thought, at one point or another, they might have stood to gain from this.
And we still don't even know exactly when or why this thing was written.
All the best,
--John
PS: OK the wager's on -- though I tend to avoid Pat O'Brien's (too big and happy for me) but Lafitte's Blacksmith's is another fine, dark hangout and I have a favorite ex-student who tends bar at a dive called Molly's on Toulouse (732, a block off of Bourbon) -- she has a very heavy pouring hand. Cheers.
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 12:49 pm
Monty - still here... just trying to keep my whole Leeds connection thing quiet at the moment!
Carps
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 01:36 pm
Hi Scott,
Just to add a bit to John's post, you suggest we should look for the person(s) with the most to gain from the diary's publication and that fame could be the motive. The trouble is, we have absolutely no evidence that anyone else was behind Mike Barrett's decision to get the diary published. In fact, both Anne and Mike talked independently about the rows they had (and which daughter Caroline confirmed, I believe) when Mike was determined to go ahead despite Anne being dead against the plan.
Mike certainly found fame and made money, but fame turned to infamy and he deliberately threatened his future royalties when he confessed to forging the diary himself, but couldn't even begin proving it by himself. (He had to hire a private investigator to try to do it for him, presumably by somehow coaxing the Sphere book from the depths of his subconscious. )
But the main snag, of course, is that Mike didn't pen the diary himself and neither did Anne, although he bitterly accused her of doing so when he was out of his mind with grief and anger over the break-up of his marriage and loss of his daughter, which he seems to blame to a large extent on the arrival of the diary in his life - all rather odd if he could simply have named the penman, described his own role from start to finish and got it over with.
And the suspected penman doesn't seem to have sought fame or been in any particular hurry to have fame thrust upon him. On the contrary, I think his reaction was more likely to be along the lines of, "Bugger off you nutters!" when investigators turned up at his bungalow.
Love,
Caz
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 19 December 2001 - 07:03 pm
Dear John and Caz,
I feel that when it comes to the whole ripper case people read too much into the clues available, the diary included. The writer may very well have written the thing 50-100 years ago. Maybe it was written more recent. Fact is there cannot be too many people involved in its sudden appearance and production as somebody would have spoken up by now.
What new insights does the diary give us on the crime scenes? I would think the writer, if he truly committed the murders, could elaborate more on the crimes than just spewing forth the same information that everyone knows.
What did Mike and Anne do with diary once they found out who supposedly wrote it? If someone gave me Lee Harvey Oswald's diary I would first ask why are you giving this to me? Which Mike did. I would then ask what the hell am I supposed to do with this thing? Which Mike did. I would then either throw the thing away or bring to either the nearest FBI office and let them authenicate it or file it or take it to the Kennedy museum and let them authenicate it or file it. Which is not what Mike did. Not tuck it under my arm and haul butt to the nearest publisher that would give me the time of day. Which Mike did do. If he did take it to Scotland Yard and they blew him off, then in police jargon....that's called a clue.
Nothing in the diary adds up evenly. Nothing about the diary adds up evenly.
Peace,
Scott
P.S. John I know Lafitte's really well. Jack probably would have knocked back a few cold ones there if he was ever in the area. I will be New Orleans in March for a conference. My wife is a professor of religion at UGA and has something to do with the Southern Humanities thing-a-ma-jig. Now if ya want I can take ya to some places in the out lying communities that will make ya say...dammmmmmn. Places like Harvey's in Chack Bay. Well hell we can even kick it at the Dungeon on Burbon St.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 20 December 2001 - 05:50 am
Hi Scott,
I agree with everything you say. Which is why I don't think anyone alive could know any more about the diary's origins than we've already heard from Mike and Anne in their various accounts, in the form of truths and half-truths, disguised with many lies of course.
I really do believe we'd have had someone coming forward with some snippets by now, if only to get their name in the papers. It's been nearly ten years since Mike decided to do something with the diary. If I had found it I would most likely have taken it to a museum or something first. And if people were telling me they couldn't date the thing, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have accepted money from its publication if offered. Maybe I wouldn't have actively sought money, but maybe I would. But Mike is Mike. And wouldn't he have been thrilled by the idea that something in his possession could turn out to make him a lot of money if he played his cards right? That's what makes his confession so hard for me to accept as anything other than a desperate act while he was in an emotional state. Why else would he have damaged the diary's earning potential, the very reason he took it straight to the commercial sector in the first place?
Love,
Caz
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 20 December 2001 - 10:10 am
Hi Scott and Caz,
Interesting stuff. Thanks. All these are fascinating questions.
But I must run -- presents to buy today...
All the best,
--John
PS: Been in the Dungeon quite a few time myself, Scott -- it's right next door to Molly's, where my friend Meg tends bar. I like a bit older, beat down crowd, though (in the Dungeon there is often hipness in the air), which is why Lafitte's and Napoleon House serve me well. Looking forward to the game Sunday.
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 20 December 2001 - 10:40 am
Hi, Scott and John:
Darn it, you have both been in the Dungeon and I haven't! But then you have gone one better than Jack, who was never incarcerated, as far as we know!
Scott, thanks for your clear-thinking thoughts on Mike's actions. After so long looking at the trees it often takes an outsider to help us see the forest.
Happy holidays to you both.
Chris
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 10:39 am
The problems at this time of year just keep on mounting.
No sooner have I got my wedding anniversary out of the way (yesterday), than I have to start dealing with wrapping presents for three young children - and then, one week today, my birthday, for which I know I will get nothing.
Still there is always the consolation that Manchester United will once again win the Premiership.
Incidentally our good friend 'Jack' may well not have seen the inside of a Jail, and that seems to be something he has in common with those two overpaid thugs who masquerade under the disguise of footballers. Sorry Carps, I respect you and all that but if Woodgate and Bowyer ever pull an England jersey on again then it'll be one game I won't be watching. The English justice system should hang it's head in shame. There hasn't been such a travesty of justice since poor Mrs Maybrick was sent to prison for murdering Jack the Ripper......err, err, her husband James.
As fascinating as your discussion may be John/Scott, it says very little about the diary. The question of Who/When/Why is, I agree, a great story in itself, but it is not necessary to answer those questions to answer the big one: Is the diary genuine?
As to what regard we hold the diary in once we assume the ink is not diamine, well you only have to look to Alec Voller for that.
Come on guys, just admit the ink is not diamine, your cheap and tawdry attempts to 'prove' otherwise are becoming tedious and embarassing - and advancing us no further down the line in the diary game.
The ink is not diamine. Alec Voller places the penmanship some distance in the past (at least ninety years old).
Why do you think Melvin went look for the Chloroacetamide? Why not go looking for the Nigrosine instead?
The diary ink contains nigrosine (as does diamine), but - and this should answer John Omlor's question - Alec Voller says the diary ink cannot possibly be diamine, and therefore since diamine is the only Manuscript ink for some time to contain nigrosine then that is why he is qualified to say the diary is old.
And if the diary is old then you guys will one day have to stop wondering about minute amounts of Chloroacetamide and start addressing issues like 'where did the Crashaw quote come from'?
You know, so many things have been said about Shirley and Paul (F) that I wonder how you guys would act if I asked you to play devil's advocate for a minute?
Apparently Mike revealed the existence of the Sphere book to Shirley on September 30th 1994. Now hold on a minute! Mike wasn't trying to prove that the diary was a forgery! He was trying to prove that it was genuine so he could make a lot of cash from it. So you seriously want me to believe that 'Mr Forger' who at that time was still wearing the facade of 'Mr genuine diary discoverer' "accidentally" let Shirley in on the knowledge of the origin of the Crashaw quote. Actually, it would make much more sense if Mike had kept his mouth shut at that point in time.
I've read it over and over again and I have no problem with Mike being asked by Shirley to go to the library to find the Crashaw quote, then being shown a library copy of the Sphere book by a librarian and suddenly thinking 'Hey, I've got that book at home!' Then Mike goes home and digs the book out of his attic and opens it time and again to the relevant page - and thus it falls open there all the time now. Apparently.
You see, this is the way that it is. When Mike was trying to prove the diary a forgery he didn't mention the Crashaw quote. When Mike was trying to prove the diary genuine he mentioned the Crashaw quote. Now if you are trying to place Mike anywhere in the 'forger' equation then that simply does not make sense, it is illogical.
The only conclusion to be had is that Mike was telling the truth. He went to the library, they showed him the Crashaw quote in their copy of the Sphere book. Then Mike realised he had the book at home. Big deal. What's so unusual about that?
So now the Crashaw quote has been knocked on the head and the diary ink is definitely not diamine, what exactly do you guys have to argue with against the diary? Sure, you attack the text all the time, but you don't really have anything with which to compare it against, do you? I mean, it's pretty much a unique object.....and as such you can't attack the integrity of the text just because it's author wrote it in a particular way. Why can't you attack it? Because, as it is unique, you can't possibly say that it goes against the norm. To borrow a phrase from somewhere it is a "one-off".
But discuss your verbs and percentages and literal definitions if you must. It just goes to prove that you have nothing of substance against the diary. So far as I can see the relative results of these discussions is most definitely heading towards declaring the diary as genuine.
Have you got nothing better than this? Do you plan to prove the diary a forgery based on the evidence of one 'verb'? Do you plan to prove anything?
Face it, the diary is genuine and for the last ten years you have been knocking your heads against a brick wall trying to prove otherwise.
Peter.
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 11:17 am
Hi Peter,
I have only a moment, but I have to take exception with at least one thing you calmly assert in your post.
You write:
"I have no problem with Mike being asked by Shirley to go to the library to find the Crashaw quote, then being shown a library copy of the Sphere book by a librarian..."
I do not believe there is any way this could have happened. Have you seen a copy of the Sphere book, Peter? It's not a literary reference book, nor a book of poetry, nor an anthology of poets, nor a book on Crashaw, nor even a history of literature (as the title suggests).
It's a collection of specific critical essays in prose on literature of different periods. The excerpted lines from the Crashaw quote, it turns out, were not even found in an essay on Crashaw. They were buried in the middle of an essay on George Herbert by Christopher Ricks, of all places.
There is simply no way any librarian is going to look in the middle of a critical anthology, in the middle of an essay on a completely different author, in the middle of a prose essay, for two lines of unidentified poetry that would turn out to be by Richard Crashaw. It would have made no sense whatsoever to have even looked there.
You have to remember what sort of essay the Crashaw lines appear quoted in, Peter. This is not the place any librarian is going to go to find anything about two random lines of poetry. And neither the librarian nor Mike (allegedly) even knew Crashaw was the author of the lines. So going to something like Ricks's critical prose essay on Herbert in the middle of the Sphere volume for these two strange lines of poetry would have been completely unreasonable.
The fact that the very same partial lines are excerpted in the middle of this essay on Herbert from a critical prose anthology and are in the diary and that Mike just happened to own that very critical anthology with that very essay with those two lines excerpted remains a problem, Peter. And your fanciful library scenario is just another dream -- dreams being the only thing anyone seems to have to support the diary's case for authenticity, since certainly no one has any actual evidence whatsoever. Still. Just one piece would be nice, if only to make the case for authenticity at least begin. As it is, there is not a single, material or historical or valid reason to think that the real James Maybrick is in any way linked either to this book or to these crimes and there is still not a single piece of evidence that would even suggest such a thing.
All the best,
--John
PS: There is also still no evidence whatsoever that the handwriting in this book is old. Just wanted to remind everyone of that.
Author: Paul Carpenter
Saturday, 22 December 2001 - 09:09 pm
Hi Peter,
As I think we have managed to establish (and this is about the only point of consensus that exists about the whole damn diary) is that nothing that Mike has ever done has ever made much sense - possibly not even to Mike himself. Therefore, speculating about Mike's motivations becomes a treacherous task. If we discount whatever tale(s) he has told about the origin of the quote and his possession of the Sphere Guide we are left with the cold hard fact that he owned a copy of a book with this very obscure quote in it. Chance? Really?
But anyway, as John has just pointed out, your scenario doesn't work unless the librarian had an intimate knowledge of the book in question. Do librarians normally have extensive knowledge of every book on their shelves? I reckon not!
Carps
BTW - I am not overly pleased at Bowyer and Woodgate's behaviour, but - unlike us, who only heard what the papers wanted us to hear - the jury heard all of the evidence and decided that Bowyer was innocent and Woodgate was guilty only of affray. Unpleasant business, and I've little doubt that they aren't the most savoury of characters. However, perspective calls beyond the tribal affinities of football fans. If a man is legally innocent, then there should be nothing to stand in his way to continue his career. Even if they are guilty, guilty men carry on in their jobs in other professions. An acquaintance of man was jailed for chinning a copper at a football match... when he got out, did he get a second chance? Yes - his employer had held his job open for him. It isn't up to employers to punish criminals - that onus rests with the courts.
I don't want you to think that I condone their behaviour though. Its pretty clear that they are a couple of arrogant tossers who need a good kicking themselves.
Merry Christmas!!
Author: Melissa Burkman
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 01:41 am
Just wondering about this "the librarian showed him the book with the quote" thing. This didn't happen that many years ago. Is it so difficult to ASK the librarian Mike supposedly talked to? (No doubt this has been addressed, but I don't understand why this remains a matter of conjecture when it seems simple enough to talk to the person in question.)
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 09:42 am
Hi Melissa, Carps, All,
While Mike allegedly badgered the staff to help him locate a source for the quote, there seems to be no evidence that anyone actually did so. In fact, as John Omlor has explained, it's not feasible that a librarian using normal methods would ever have found it for him. But this does leave the possibility that Mike, left to his own devices, flicking through the pages of any likely-looking books (in the English Lit/Poetry sections), finally picked up the Sphere vol.2. On flicking through it he would have seen 'O costly...' staring at him from the page (as we know he did at some point, whether it was then or in his own copy at home before the diary was completed).
We do know that the library did have the right book, which was lucky if Mike simply made up the story without thinking to check first. It's hard to imagine Mike having a clue about the book's general availability, never mind whether the library was likely to have a copy. It would have been extremely useful if a member of staff had been able to remember a man answering Mike's description badgering them for help. Or confirmation that a Michael Barrett had indeed used the library around the right time. Shirley Harrison may have followed this line of enquiry and got nowhere but I'll try to find out.
Love,
Caz
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 09:44 am
Hi Melissa,
If I remember right, Mike didn't actually claim the librarian showed him the book with the quote in it. That, I think, was one of Peter Wood's fantasy scenarios.
I believe that Mike actually told Shirley that he found the quote himself in the library. This, of course, seems even more astonishing.
But perhaps the Liverpool library copy of the Sphere Guide has the same "binding defect" as Mike's own copy, and when he pulled it from the shelves thinking it might be a reference book, it just automatically opened to the page of the Ricks essay on Herbert that happened to have the two lines from Crashaw on it.
Or perhaps not.
All the best,
--John
PS: If I have Mike's original discovery story wrong, as I might, someone please correct me. Thanks.
PPS: Hi Caz -- Our posts appeared simultaneously. Was I right that Mike's claim was that he found it himself, not that a librarian showed him the book?
Author: Melissa Burkman
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 11:46 am
Hi Caz, John,
Thanks for (almost!) clarifying that. This case is so full of fantasy scenarios that it is very naughty to make them up in the rare instances where they're not needed! *rapping Peter Wood's knuckles*
For Peter and John Carpenter,
This Bowyer football fellah who evidently did something terrible... any chance he's related to Thomas Bowyer?
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 12:26 pm
John O.
You've made a good point there and, although it is one that is open to interpretation, I am prepared to concede the point to you that Mike found the quote himself in the library in Liverpool.
The wording in Shirley's book certainly does not state that the librarian showed Mike the quote. It does say that Mike badgered the staff for help. It does not say "Mike told me that he badgered the staff for help". That at least suggests to me that Shirley followed up on the library research or at the very least Paul Feldman or Carol Emmas did.
Is it not the purpose of a librarian to be knowledgeable about books? Maybe in a large city library they actually have people who specialise in certain subjects. And John, you know a lot about literature, is it not also more than feasible that someone with your amount of knowledge (perhaps slightly less) was working in the library that day and when confronted with "Oh costly intercourse of death" brushed Mike away with a quick "....sounds like Crashaw to me, go and look over there".
Why do you have a problem with a librarian being knowledgeable about poetry? Obscure poetry yes, but the way we interpret the situation now is that the librarian just pointed Mike in the right direction.
STOP PRESS: I am listening to the Barrett interview tapes whilst tapping away at my keyboard (many thanks to Madeleine for that) and wonder of wonders somebody has just asked Mike to "...tell us about 'Costly intercourse of death'"! So I will pause this for a few moments and see what Mike has to say, maybe he will elaborate on what is in Shirley's book. BRB.
At the beginning Mike is asking someone to fetch him some whisky then he will tell them about 'Costly intercourse.....'! He has been rebuked for this and then mutters something repeatedly about 'not breaking an oath', then follows that with "I know about Catholicism", although he does struggle with the pronunciation of the word. First impressions: It sounds like the protestations of Thompson and Venables when they were being interviewed by the police after killing Jamie Bulger, just because Mike is prepared to swear on the bible doesn't convince me that he is telling the truth. But he hasn't got to the crux of the matter yet so I will release the pause button and........BRB.
"....This is unfair because I know I am telling the truth.....I don't give a damn if Anne knows about it ", something about "I hate Feldman's methods". It sounds interesting. BRB.
We're going round in circles, Mike's asking for Scotch. Yawn!!! BRB.
He's gone off the subject now and is talking about ironing Anne's bras and knickers! What is this all about?
They are back onto the Crashaw quote now and Mike is retelling about contacting Sphere in the wake of the Hillsborough disaster, he said something about "...two volumes of books, volumes 1 to 7..".
To be fair Mike does say that he contacted loads of local celebrities looking for articles to sell, but he only says he contacted other publishers besides Sphere when prompted, i.e. "Did you contact other publishers?", "Oh, yes".
Mike's story as I read it in Shirley's book was that he couldn't sell the books, so he put them in his loft. On the tape it transpires that he didn't even try to sell the books and they didn't go to his loft, he put them on a window ledge in 'the small bedroom'.
Now Mike is referring to meeting someone called 'Jenny' and her son who was supposedly doing an 'English Literature' course and apparently he gave the books to him!
Finally he gets round to the part about where he discovers the quote in the library and there is no mention of a librarian whatsoever, just Mike taking all the credit. Apparently he found the quote, looked at the book in the library and thought to himself "Hang on a minute, I've seen these volumes before", dredged back through his mind and then thought of the books he had left at Jenny's house. Went round to Jenny's house and the two volumes (Jenny's and the library one) matched up perfectly. To clarify, Mike does say something along the lines of it took him 'bloody ages' to find the quote.
Apparently he left the Sphere volume at Jenny's house, although for some reason he seems intent on reassuring Anne that nothing happened between him and Jenny.
Someone is leading him back to talking about the library now..............
.....and Mike being Mike he avoids the question completely...........
.....this bit is really weird but Mike also alludes to the Sphere volumes also being '...in a print shop in Mount Pleasant...', which is apparently a road somewhere in Liverpool. I haven't heard this part of the story before. So he spent ages looking for the quote in the diary, he's trying his hardest to convince Shirley et al that he found it purely by coincidence and then he says something like "oh, they're in the print shop as well"! And everybody ignores him!!!
Oh, my mistake, apparently he asked at the library (someone on the tape finally asked him what happened at the library) and he was advised to go to the Out of print shop in Mount Pleasant. Oh well.
Back to the tape.
Mike has just been asked if he asked anyone at the library for help in finding the 'costly intercourse' quote.
Quite categorically (quite off hand actually) Mike states "No, I just thought of it myself".
Do we believe Mike? Do we believe that he found it with no help at all? Do we believe that he discovered 'Battlecrease' without any help? Probably not.
They've left the Crashaw quote behind now and are talking about something to do with Tony Devereux.
So, in summary:
The Sphere books Mike was sent were volume 1 to 7.
He didn't even attempt to sell them, reasoning that nobody in Liverpool would be interested in them.
He gave them to the son of someone called 'Jenny'.
He found the quote completely unaided at the library.
The books are also available at the 'Out of print shop'.
A couple of weeks after finding the quote in the library Mike remembered having the Sphere books at Jenny's house, due to the similarity of the volumes. He places this as just after his birthday on May 29th.
Now here is what needs answering for me:
John O. You yet again make another excellent point that the Crashaw quote isn't even in an article on Crashaw. So which is the more difficult to imagine:
1) Mike gets the Sphere books in the manner he describes and then, whilst forging the diary, thumbs through all seven volumes and lifts one quote by Crashaw, which wasn't even in an article on Crashaw and guess what? Crashaw has Whitechapel connections!
2) Mike has nothing to do with forging the diary and gets a bee in his bonnet about the Crashaw quote after having it mentioned to him by Shirley. He sits in the library for days on end and, what do you know, he finds the Crashaw quote.
Neither possibility sounds particularly wholesome, but I can believe 2) much more than I can believe 1).
And on that note I shall retire with a Christmas joke:
What goes 'Ho-ho-ho-thud!'?
Father Christmas laughing his head off.
Bye!!!!!!!!
Peter.
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 12:38 pm
Melissa
Lee Bowyer isn't related to anybody except maybe some low life sub primaeval amoeba scum that lives in a swamp somewhere. Him and his mates thought it would be funny to kick a young Asian lad so hard that they nearly killed him.
And Carps, I agree that once found innocent a man should be allowed to resume his daily life, but Woodgate was not found innocent. He was found guilty of affray. That isn't to be taken lightly. And yet he was sentenced to less community service than King Eric got for kicking that racist scumbag at Selhurst Park. How can that be fair?
As far as I'm concerned mate, if you and I go kicking someone in the head, it doesn't matter who delivers the fatal blow (not fatal in this case) or the hardest kick, we are each as culpable as the other.
Bowyer was at the scene and lied through his teeth to protect himself. Duberry is being vilified for telling the truth. Woodgate got the sympathy of the judge.
And it gave me absolutely no pleasure at all that those Geordie windbags scored a last minute winner, because a draw would have been a much better result for Man U.
Sorry mate, I hope you didn't take any of that personally. I just wish a few of you Elland Road season ticket holders would see fit to staying away or better still turning your back on the action in protest.
What odds now on O'Leary going to Man U next season?
And Chris T. G. Interesting to see that Utd and Liverpool are now joint favourites.
Peter
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 23 December 2001 - 01:10 pm
Hi Peter,
First of all, early in your post you say:
"is it not also more than feasible that someone with your amount of knowledge (perhaps slightly less) was working in the library that day and when confronted with "Oh costly intercourse of death" brushed Mike away with a quick "....sounds like Crashaw to me, go and look over there"
No.
It's not feasible.
First, because the "over there" would not have been a book like the Sphere Guide. If I show a librarian two lines of unidentified poetry, a knowledgeable librarian is not going to send me to a book of prose critical essays, even if they thought they recognized the possible author of the lines. It would make no sense. They might send me to a set of concordances or to poetry anthologies or to collections of quotations or to any number of other such reference books. But they wouldn't send me to a book of prose essays on the history of literature, and certainly not to a book that happens to have some essay on George Herbert that might just have two lines by Crashaw excerpted in it to illustrate the difference between the two poets. That would make no sense.
And you say have a librarian saying ""....sounds like Crashaw to me, go and look over there".
But it doesn't. There's not enough of the quote to even say it sounds like Crashaw. Five words, for God's sake. Without knowing it's Crashaw, it doesn't necessarily sound like anyone. Unless someone working in the Liverpool library just happened to have memorized this obscure translation of a Sacred Latin Hymn by Crashaw and also somehow memorized the fact that two lines from that verse happened to be cited in an essay on Herbert in a volume of prose essays, your scenario wherein a librarian says "....sounds like Crashaw to me, go and look over there" makes no sense at all.
So no, Peter, the idea that anyone sent Mike to the Sphere Guide to find the Crashaw quote is a non-starter.
Now, as to the idea that Mike found the quote somehow in the library in the Sphere guide in an essay on Herbert...
I'd like to know exactly how that happened as well.
But, I think I can analyze your two possibilities and demonstrate why one is actually considerably more believable, at least in part, than the other.
Here are the two situations you offer:
"1) Mike gets the Sphere books in the manner he describes and then, whilst forging the diary, thumbs through all seven volumes and lifts one quote by Crashaw, which wasn't even in an article on Crashaw and guess what? Crashaw has Whitechapel connections!
"2) Mike has nothing to do with forging the diary and gets a bee in his bonnet about the Crashaw quote after having it mentioned to him by Shirley. He sits in the library for days on end and, what do you know, he finds the Crashaw quote."
Situation number two relies heavily on that mysterious "what do you know."
The question isn't just "How does Mike manage to find the Crashaw quote in the library?"
The question is "How does Mike manage to find the Crashaw quote in the middle of the essay on Herbert in the middle of the Sphere Guide in the library?"
And I still can't see a reasonable explanation for that one -- unless it was just dumb, impossible luck or the same binding defect at work -- and the odds, dear Peter, are seriously against such a scenario.
Situation number one, on the other hand, is slightly misstated. If in fact Mike's copy of the Sphere Guide did fall open to the very page that had the two lines by Crashaw that appear in the diary on them, then the idea that the Sphere Guide was the source for the two lines becomes quite believable. Mike brings forth the diary. Mike has the book. The book has the very lines that are in the diary. Not in the poem itself, not in a book on Crashaw, but in a prose essay on a different author altogether. The book allegedly falls open to the very page that has the very lines that appear in the diary and the book is owned by the very guy that brings forth the diary. Mike, or whoever put the quote in the diary, wouldn't have had to flip through all seven volumes at all. They would have simply had to have seen the lines in the open book, notice the conjunction of sex and death, think they were cool lines for a Ripper diary, and stick them in. Nothing really unbelievable about that at all.
And here I must confess that I've never quite seen the complete relevance of the fact that Crashaw, as a very young child, once lived in Whitechapel. It's a fascinating historical coincidence, I think, but little more as far as I can see.
So, in fact, I think a version of scenario #1 is much more believable, much more reasonable, than the stretching "what do you know" -- "he sits and then somehow he discovers in the very book" fantasy of scenario # 2.
If scenario #2 happened in any way, I think it’s more likely to have happened as Caz described, just by a sheer and nearly impossible accident.
There is no way, it seems to me, barring the completely unexplainable cruelty of fate, that someone carries a line and a half of obscure, unidentified poetry into a library and then finds them, of all places, cited separately in the middle of a prose essay on a completely different author, in the middle a book of prose essays, in the middle of a seven volume set of essays. No way. Not unless he already knew they were there.
My guess? If Mike didn't already know they were there, he discovered them, perhaps after getting his assignment from Shirley, in his own copy of the Sphere Guide, when it fell open, and stunned by this and seizing his good fortune, he made up a story about his diligent research in the library in order to make himself look smart in everyone's eyes (something Mike seems constantly determined to do).
Yup, I'm betting Mike lied. Again.
And I still think that the Sphere Guide remains the most likely source for the Crashaw lines in the diary until someone can come up with a better one.
But I still have no idea who specifically put them there or who wrote this book.
All the best, it's almost kick-off time.
--John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 08:39 am
Hi John,
[Mike] 'made up a story about his diligent research in the library in order to make himself look smart in everyone's eyes (something Mike seems constantly determined to do).'
Then why did he, at the same time, ruin it by telling the same people that "What do you know? I had the same book indoors and I gave it to Jenny." (And if he did this shortly before his initial confession in June 1994, how on earth could he have so quickly forgotten the significance of that book?)
We know the lines were findable at the library. Mike apparently guessed that they would be if his discovery there was pure invention. "What do you know?" the lines were really there, in the same book Mike had at home. "What do you know?" They were also there in an out-of-print bookshop. I'm not sure my scenario, involving Mike flicking through page after page in book after book, spending "bloody ages" doing so, and finally finding 'O costly...' is that much more of a fantastical "what do you know?" than the "what do you know?" that accompanies Crashaw's Whitechapel connections - when you think of the lack of any other evidence whatsoever that Mike knew where to find the lines before late summer 1994 or knew anything at all about the diary's creation or materials used. (I don't believe for one minute that he was given the job of buying a suitable ink etc). Try to imagine the almost infinite number of towns this poet could have had connections with apart from that small part of London where the murders actually took place. Compare the number of districts, in or around London alone (never mind the rest of the UK or the whole world), with the number of books on English Lit/Poetry in that Liverpool library that were available for Mike to flick through, and I don't think the former is really any less of a stretch than the latter.
Have a great Christmas everyone.
Love,
Caz
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 11:22 am
Hi Caz,
I guess my suggestion that it seemed more likely that Mike first saw the lines in his copy of the Sphere Guide, at some point, and then "discovered" them in the library is just based on the fact that Mike owned the Sphere Guide with the lines in them and since it would be such an unlikely place to find them, it seems more probable that he found them among his own limited number of books than among the number of books possible in the library. You see?
As I mentioned, it is certainly at least possible (though an amazing coincidence and cruel twist of history), that Mike somehow discovered the lines in the Liverpool library in the Sphere Guide excerpted in the middle of a prose essay on Herbert and then realized he had the very same book at home. But I don't see how it would have come about that he would have even been looking in a prose essay on Herbert for two random unidentified lines of poetry.
Presumably, the only thing Mike knew about the words "Oh costly intercourse\ of death" was that they were poetry. So why would you even bother checking for them in a volume of prose? It doesn't make much sense.
Which reminds me, why were Mike and Shirley and everyone so sure that they were a citation from a published work anyway? And a citation findable in the library? There are no quotation marks around them and the "O" from the original is mis-transcribed as the more common and modern "Oh." Why were these lines not simply thought of initially as part of the diary's composition, until someone recognized them as otherwise because they knew their source? I would suggest that they assumed the words were a citation not only because of the syntax, but at least in part because of the way they appear on the page.
In fact, if you look very closely at the words on the page, it seems to me that they are written in a slightly smaller hand than the rest of the page. In fact, you'll notice that the page begins with a prose passage, then there is a single line of failed verse scratched out, then a space then another prose passage and it has always looked to me like the words were written in the space between the scratched out line and the second prose paragraph almost as an insertion. Like the rest of the page was written first and the line and a half from Crashaw was slipped into the space later. And it's alone. Why? What the hell is it doing there? Did someone suddenly think of it, remember it, come upon it in a book, and say "this is cool, let's add this" and then a space was found for its insertion? It almost looks like that on the page.
Anyway, back to more and less likely discovery scenarios.
So all Mike knows when he walks into the library, allegedly, is that he has a line and a half of verse.
So, if he does start spending hours and days flipping through pages in the library, wouldn't they be pages of verse? Why would he start flipping through pages of prose to find the two lines? It just doesn't seem to make any sense.
Then consider that he has a book at home (where there are, I assume, a lot less books than in the library). It has an essay in it that contains the two lines, in a quotation. It seems to me more likely that he might have stumbled on it there than in the middle of the sea of collections of poetry he would have to check in the library before he'd even think about checking prose essays for possible mentions of these exact two lines.
Think about it. You've got a line and a half from a poem. You have no idea who they are by or when. Why, in a library, would you even be "flipping through" the pages of a big book filled entirely with prose for this line and a half of verse?
But if you happened to have, at home, a set of books on literature that you couldn't give away, you might have a look in them just in passing. And if one happened to just fall open to a page because it had some sort of binding defect, and on that page you saw -- holy crap! -- your line and a half! Well, damn. You're done. Now, if the library had that book, and you could say you "found" it there and that this proves what a diligent and accomplished researcher you are... I'm checkin' the library, man. If this book's there, I'm going to be able to look like a bloody research genius -- I'll be like the Keith Skinner of Liverpool, man. And everyone will be suitably impressed.
But then, Caz, the problem you raise rears its ugly and confounding and annoying head. Why, for God's sake, do I then tell everyone that I have the same book at home?
Am I afraid they'll find that out anyway, and do I want to cover my butt just in case? Am I so amazed at the coincidence that I just have to tell the world?
I could understand telling this to the world later, when I'm supposedly trying to tell the world I forged the document...
Oh wait. Mike didn't do that, did he? He goes to the newspapers with his claim that he was the greatest forger in the world and then never mentions that he owns the book with the Crashaw line in them.
What the hell?
But I forget. Did he tell Brough he did it before or after he told Shirley he found the lines?
If it was after (was it?) then none of this makes any goddamn sense.
Help me with the timeline here.
Mike has already told Shirley he knows the lines are in the Sphere Guide and that he owns the Sphere Guide.
Then, shortly afterwards, he confesses to Brough. But he never mentions that he owns the book with the lines in them that would be clear evidence that he at least helped compose the document?
That can't be right, can it?
So, as usual, my answer to your question about why Mike would tell Shirley he owned the book, when he was trying to convince her he did not write the diary and would not tell Brough he owned the book when he was trying to convince him that he did write the diary is -- I have absolutely no idea.
Consider:
1.) Mike wants Shirley to believe that he did not write the diary. He tells her he owns the Sphere Guide with the diary lines in it.
2.) Mike wants Harold Brough to believe that he did write the diary. He does not tell him that he owns the Sphere Guide with the diary lines in it.
It's backwards.
You make sense of this. I'm tired of trying.
Finally, as to Crashaw's Whitechapel connections -- the reason this is less significant for me than all of the above is that I see no problem with this coincidence, since there is nothing in the diary that would suggest or require that Crashaw have Whitechapel connections or that our writers would have to have known this. There are five words from one of Crashaw's poems (the one, the only one, the few lines from the only on, that appear in the Ricks essay in the Sphere Guide). There is nothing in the diary about the poet being linked to the history of Whitechapel or the diarist reading Crashaw because of his history or anything at all linking Crashaw, really, to any of this, other than the five words which are also in the Sphere Guide. So, the fact that as a little child Crashaw once lived for a short time, early in the Seventeenth Century, in Whitechapel just seems like a historical oddity to me. It's interesting, but I'm not sure why it's significant or tells us anything about the composition of the diary or the appearance of the five words which also happen to appear in the Sphere Guide. If there were several Crashaw lines, or even the deliberate citation of one of Crashaw's famous poems or anthologized works, that would suggest that the diarist knew or was looking for a reason to include Crashaw especially, that would be one thing. But it seems quite possible that this line and half, from the middle of an obscure Crashaw translation of a sacred Latin hymn, appears not because its Crashaw but because the lines appeared excerpted in an external source and sounded somehow oddly appropriate (the mixture of sex and death and a price to pay, etc...). Then, upon further research by diary readers, we discover that the guy who wrote the line and a half back in the 1600's had a family history which linked him, as a small boy, for a time, to Whitechapel. To me, that is a coincidence, and one not nearly as remarkable as Mike stumbling on two lines of verse in the middle of a prose essay in the middle of a prose book in the middle of thousands and thousands of books in the Liverpool library and that book with that essay with those lines just happening to also be one he had at home because they were given to him for disaster relief fundraising. Now that, to me, seems less likely to be a believable coincidence than the idea that a famous 17th Century English poet had a childhood link to the Whitechapel section of London. I do not believe, nor can I see any reason to believe, that our diarists would have known this or would have had to have known this to slip in the five words that appear both excerpted in the diary and excerpted in the prose of the Sphere Guide.
But my brain hurts and it's Christmas Eve, so I'm going to stop now. I hope I've been at least somewhat coherent. I know I've been no help.
All the best,
--John
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 01:09 pm
John--I've grown a bit weary of the ol' Maybrick Diary, but I feel obligated to make one point since no one here seems particularly eager to mention it.
When Melvin Harris contacted the Liverpool Library he was told that they did not have the Sphere volume and never did. He checked a second time and was given the same information.
Shirley Harrison checked as well. I believe the way she put it was that she was told that the volume in question was "missing".
There was some debate over the matter, and Shirley Harrison checked a second time. This time the volume was indeed found at the Liverpool Library, as Caz mentions. But where it was found is most interesting.
The book was found in an upstairs repository, or, as we say here in the U.S. the book was "in storage".
When Melvin checked the library for the third time with this information, he was told that the library didn't have the book even listed in their main catalogue, but there was another list somewhere that listed books that had been removed to storage. Thus the confusion.
The book came out in 1971; I don't think anyone knows for sure know how long it was in storage, or if it was in storage in 1994. But I can't imagine the thing was exactly a hot item in a standard public library, and I have to assume that Melvin checked the Liverpool Library quite soon after he learned about Mike's claim.
So the very real possibility exists that Mike could not have found the book in the Liverpool Library, and the idea that an all-knowing librarian led him to the dusty volume in storage after seeing those five magic words is not even worth considering.
Mike couldn't have found it with help; Mike couldn't have found it without help.
What doesn't ever go away with all the talk of accidental discoveries, Crashaw's links to Whitechapel, etc., etc., is the fact that Mike owned the defect copy two years before the Maybrick diary went public. This was confirmed by Mike's sister, and Anne Graham has not [publically at least, I don't know about privately] disputed this.
Make of it what you will. I know what I make of it.
Remember the condition Mike was in when he phoned Harold Brough. His mind wasn't exactly clear. My hunch is that Mike forgot about the Crashaw line until Harrison asked him to hunt it down, or, more likely, until Alan Gray was nagging him for some confirmation. The trouble Mike got into was the classic one of trying to fight a battle on two fronts: telling one group he forged the thing, and another that it was entirely genuine. He found it difficult to keep up both acts simultaneously, particularly when he never really had much information to begin with, but was, in my opinion, only a sort of 'hanger on' that ended up with the diary.
Seasons greetings, RP
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 01:30 pm
You're right John. It's all one big ugly mess. And you make the same point I made a few days ago that Mike mentions owning the Sphere book at home when trying to prove the diary genuine, but not when trying to prove it a forgery. It stinks. And we are all trying to make sense of it.
Just as an aside John, you mention the 'modern' spelling of 'O' as 'Oh'. Would that 'modern' not extend as far back as 1888 Liverpool? I think it would.
And John, I may be paying you too much of a compliment here, but I bet if someone had come to you with those five words 'Oh costly intercourse of death' you would either have been able to identify the poet or at least it would have set alarm bells ringing seriously.
Shirley explains adequately in her book her reasons for believing that 'Oh Costly' is a quote. It is just not the sort of thing one writes in a diary unless it's a quote. And Shirley believes the diarist used it to extraordinary sensitivity.
So this, for my part, is my interpretation of events. Shirley asks Mike to investigate the 'Oh Costly...' quote (and remember if Mike had forged the diary then he would have been dead chuffed at this little insert being fawned over) as she believes it is an excerpt from a poem.
Mike goes to the library and badgers everyone blind until he hits upon somebody with a little knowledge of obscure baroque poetry. Now John, I am in no way suggesting that Mike was pointed directly to the Sphere guide that he found the quote in. I think it more likely that is one part of the story where Mike told the truth - i.e. he looked for bloody ages before he found it.
So the only lie Mike's told is to claim that he found the quote without any help. It's nonsense, right? But pointed in the right direction with some help from a friendly librarian he starts to thumb through every book he can find that would have anything to do with obscure baroque poets.
Look at it this way John: If I asked you to go and find some information on Gary Numan you'd struggle, right? He's only ever done one autobiography and I doubt it's in your local library. There have been a few books written on him, but nothing significant for many a year. So if I was to say 'John, find Gary's date of birth', that might be relatively easy. But if I was to say John, place these lines of Numan lyric "Hey bitch, this is what you are - purified, sanctified, sacrificed" - you'd struggle. You'd need help. Where would you look? You'd look in any book that would cover any of the following subjects: 1980's popular music/Electronic music/Synthesisers/English pop stars to make it in America/Etc Etc Etc......
The list that you could look at in your quest is very long. The place where you might find the answer would be hard to find, but you would stand a chance if you cast your net wide - and to get back to the point, that's what I believe Mike did - he hoovered up every book he could find that would have anything that would remotely connect itself to obscure baroque poetry.
So during his journey Mike might have come across other examples of Crashaw's work, he might even have read a biography of Crashaw (if such a work exists) - but it would have passed him by completely, because Mike wasn't looking for Crashaw, Mike was looking for 'Oh costly intercourse of death' - and eventually he found it
Like I said before John, all of these possibilities and scenarios stink a little. Us having Mike poring for hours over books in the library, you writing off Crashaw's Whitechapel connections with a cursory flick of the cuff.
Anyway, as you rightly pointed out it is Christmas Eve - I wonder if I'll be the last person to be here tonight? Sad B*****D!
Have a good one.
Peter.
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 01:36 pm
Hi RJ,
I was with you right up until your last paragraph. Then it seemed to me like you started making excuses.
Yes, as I've said, I do not believe any librarian could have shown Mike the quote in the Sphere Guide. A good librarian might have been able to direct Mike to poetry reference books. An incredibly good librarian might even have thought they recognized the quote from the 17th Century or even from the Metaphysicals, and sent Mike to anthologies. But no librarian would have sent Mike to or found the quote in the middle of a prose essay on Herbert in the middle of a collection of prose essays in the Sphere Guide.
And yes, I too, have a hard time understanding how Mike himself could have or would have even looked in such a volume of prose essays for two unidentified lines of poetry. I cannot imagine how Mike could have stumbled on the lines in this book in the middle of the library. (I can imagine how he might have stumbled on it in this book in his own home, where the possible places to look are severely limited, of course.)
But, even if Mike did not locate the source of the quote in the library, RJ, that doesn't tell us that he knew the quote was in the Sphere Guide before the diary was composed. It is certainly possible that he discovered the quote in the Guide that he owned sometime after acquiring and showing Doreen the diary and then made up the tale about the library to make himself look the genius researcher. He seems very interested in appearing intelligent to others.
But then you come up with the "remember the condition Mike was in" stuff and it sounds like you are beginning to posit excuses for stuff you can't explain (like why Mike, when he was trying to prove he forged the book to the world and to Brough never mentions the quote from the Sphere Guide). That's when I start to doubt.
It seems to me that the simple facts are that just as no-one can reasonably explain how Mike might have found the quote in the most unlikeliest of all places in the library that it could have existed, no one can also reasonably explain why, if Mike new the quote was in his own book and in the diary, he didn't use this little bit of crucial evidence when he was trying to prove to Brough and the world that he was the greatest forger of all time.
The fact is that they can't explain in a reasonable or likely way how Mike could have found the quote the way he claims (or anywhere other than in his own book) and you can't explain in a reasonable or likely way how Mike could have tried prove his own claims about being the forger and then never mentioned the single bit of material evidence that actually supports that claim.
The Crashaw quote in the Sphere Guide was the only piece of real, tangible evidence Mike had that he forged the diary, and it's the one thing he doesn't mention to Brough when he is trying convince Brough he forged the diary.
I have no explanation for this, and barring the too convenient, Mike must have been confused or somehow forgot or was in some bad "condition," that caused him not to mention such an important detail, neither do you.
That's why this makes my brain hurt.
If Mike wanted Shirley to believe he did not write the diary, why tell her he owned the Sphere Guide with the copy of the quote in it? Especially if he wanted his "library story" to be bought.
If Mike wanted Brough to believe he did write the diary, why not tell him he owned the Sphere Guide with the copy of the quote in it? Especially if he wanted his "greatest forger" claim to be bought.
Neither thing makes any sense. And that's where it stands, it seems to me.
Happily living amidst the inexplicable, I remain,
--John
PS: If, as you say, no one knows whether or not the book "was in storage in 1994," then I'm not sure how your account of what Melvin learned is helpful -- since 1994 is when Mike was there. We'd need to know if the book was on the shelves then before we could say anything one way or the other about Mike's ability to have seen it there.
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 01:49 pm
John--No excuses are being made. All you need to know is right there in front of you. Think, man. Shirley Harrison sent Mike to the Liverpool Library to find the quote. He could not have found it there. But he came back with the citation nonetheless. Thus, it's obviousthat Mike knew where the quote was to be found. Those that are making excuse are those that hang on to the demonstratably inane idea that Mike found the quote in the Liverpool library and just happened to have the defect copy in his attic. RP
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 02:07 pm
Hi Peter,
My post above to RJ was being composed as yours appeared.
Now then, as to yours:
You say:
"And John, I may be paying you too much of a compliment here, but I bet if someone had come to you with those five words 'Oh costly intercourse of death' you would either have been able to identify the poet or at least it would have set alarm bells ringing seriously."
I might have been able to see it and think it was poetry. I might have even been able to speculate that it might be a quote. I would most certainly not have been able to identify the poet or even the specific time or place or language of the original or style or likely authors beyond a vague guess. I might have thought to look for lines starting with "O" in anthologies to get a sense of what time frame would be more likely, but that wouldn't have helped me very much -- since I'd still have centuries of poetry to choose from. No, Peter, it's too great a compliment. We're talking about five words at random. The only people who are going to be able to make any progress in identifying that quote are people who have memorized the verse, people who happen to be experts in that poet or that poetry and know the verse, or people who have recently seen it before or written it into something or used t for some other purpose. Otherwise, discovering it would require a large amount of luck.
As to your version of events...
You write:
"and remember if Mike had forged the diary then he would have been dead chuffed at this little insert being fawned over"
Or he'd be delighted at the playing out of one of his silly little games... It depends.
Then you say Mike ran into:
"somebody with a little knowledge of obscure baroque poetry."
If he had, that somebody would have sent him to Crashaw anthologies, or at least anthologies of Metaphysical poetry. But definitely not to the Sphere Guide -- a collection of prose essays. Not to find two lines of poetry.
So it does not appear that such a thing ever happened. If Mike found the lines in the Sphere Guide, it could only have been because he did not run into "somebody with a little knowledge of obscure baroque poetry," Peter. If he had, he would have found them in a much more logical place -- in Crashaw's collected works, for instance.
You say: "But pointed in the right direction with some help from a friendly librarian.."
But the Sphere Guide would not have been the right direction, Peter. That's the point. So this obviously never happened.
Then you say:
"But if I was to say John, place these lines of Numan lyric "Hey bitch, this is what you are - purified, sanctified, sacrificed" - you'd struggle. You'd need help. Where would you look? You'd look in any book that would cover any of the following subjects: 1980's popular music/Electronic music/Synthesisers/English pop stars to make it in America/Etc Etc Etc..… "
But your example does not fit the situation, since Mike had no idea it was Crashaw, or even 17th Century, or even British poetry. And neither would anyone else from just those five words (unless they happened to know the specific poem). The five words by themselves are not even identifiable as Metaphysical poetry, Peter. Geez, they could just have easily come from Shakespeare, for instance -- and how many plays is that and how many lines? Or Milton -- there'd be some fun. Both would have used the "O" -- and did, often.
So Mike would have had no net to cast, widely or otherwise.
So there is still no reasonable explanation as to how Mike would possibly have found these five words of verse specifically excerpted in the middle of a prose essay on an entirely different author in the middle of a volume entirely of prose essays -- one which he just happened to also have at home.
Come on, Peter. Honestly. At a certain point one has to just say that this makes no real sense.
Nor, of course, does Mike confessing to Brough and the world that he forged the diary, and then not mentioning the only bit of evidence he has to support this claim, of course.
And that, I repeat, is where we are -- with two events that simply do not make any sense either way.
And that is why I'm still smiling.
All the best,
--John
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 02:17 pm
No RJ,
Believe me, I do see the excuses being made to account for Mike's somehow "finding" the quote in the library.
The excuses I see you making have to do with why Mike never mentioned the only single piece of material evidence he allegedly had that would have supported his claim to Brough and the world that he forged the diary.
"He was in a bad condition. He got confused. He was trying to play both sides and it proved too much for him. Something like that." Etc.
None of these explain, in any reasonable way, why Mike would go to the papers to confess and prove himself the greatest forger in history and then not mention the one and only piece of hard evidence that supported his claim to have written the diary -- that he owned the book with the quote in it.
They need excuses to explain how he could have "found" the quote in such an unlikely place. You need excuses to explain how he could have confessed to the world concerning his masterpiece of forgery and then not mentioned the only material bit of evidence he allegedly had to support his claim.
And that's because neither scenario -- Mike's somehow finding the quote in the Sphere Guide in the library or Mike's knowing the quote was from his copy of the Sphere volume and not mentioning it to prove he forged the diary -- makes any sense.
That's what I've been trying to demonstrate.
All the best,
--John
PS: And this bears repeating, because it's delightful:
If Mike wanted Shirley to believe he did not write the diary, why tell her he owned the Sphere Guide with the copy of the quote in it? Especially if he wanted his "library story" to be bought.
If Mike wanted Brough to believe he did write the diary, why not tell him he owned the Sphere Guide with the copy of the quote in it? Especially if he wanted his "greatest forger" claim to be bought.
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 02:26 pm
John--If you don't mind me saying you & Caz are both making the same grave tactical error in trying to figure out the Maybrick diary by second-guessing the psychology of Mike Barrett and/or Anne Graham. I refuse to do this. This is not an excuse, it's a way of evaluating the evidence. Trying to figure out the motivations of Mike or Anne is an empty well; one needs to concentrate on what is known.
It is known that Mike had a habit of taking obscure quotes and using them as his own. [See Shirley Harrison's book]. Its his MO if you will. The Diary contains such a quote. Mike owned a copy of the book, binding-defect and all, that had the obscure passage. He could not have found it in the manner he claimed in the Liverpool Library; he subsequently came forward with the Sphere copy. This cannot be a coincidence. Scott was correct when he said that things are usually simpler than they appear to be. The simple solution is that the Crashaw quote came from the copy of the Sphere owned by Mike Barrett.
It's a waste of breath in arguing over what Mike might have said on any particular occasion. RP
Author: R.J.P.
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 03:18 pm
PS. John, in addition to the points made above, I'd suggest pondering the following. It seems to me that the argument you are suggesting all boils down to this: Mike Barrett didn't make a comprehensive & convincing confession, thus we must doubt his involvement.
But is this a reasonable argument? For somebody to be involved in a shady action, is it a prerequisite that they make a full & believable confession?
Of course not.
But when I make this objection, the second argument is immediately given: but Mike wanted so terribly to discredit Feldman, etc.
But all this is just more psychoanalyzing Mike Barrett. [Why didn't he tell Brough? My answer: who knows, maybe he had a hang-over? It's not an excuse, it's just a refusal to play the shrink.] And I really truly think it is an empty pursuit in trying to figure out Mike's motivations, and that's why it doesn't bother me in the least that Mike made so many contradicting statements. What counts is that he owned the Sphere volume, and the quote appears in the Maybrick diary, and no other explanation of how it got there is even remotely plausible. Best wishes.
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 24 December 2001 - 05:46 pm
Yes, RJ,
But still none of that begins to explain why a guy -- one who wanted so badly for it to be known that he committed this forgery that he actually went to the newspapers to tell them his story -- then failed to mention the only piece of material evidence he had to support that story. He goes to the paper to tell the world he's a master forger and then what? forgets to mention? the only piece of actual, material evidence that supports his claim?
That's what doesn't make sense and that's what makes people wonder about what Mike actually knew and when he knew it.
Now I'm off for holiday celebrations.
All the best to everyone,
--John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 26 December 2001 - 09:00 am
Hi All,
Let's look at the summer of 1994 again for a moment. Mike takes the Sphere volume (and his only evidence of involvement in the diary's creation) among others to his new girlfriend Jenny's house, in case her son can use them. This is apparently around the time of his birthday at the end of May. Three weeks later he is confessing to forging the diary single-handedly and is going to have to prove it somehow if he wants to be known as the world's greatest forger. At some point, Shirley says to him words to the effect, "Don't be so daft, Mike. We both know you didn't do anything of the sort. You'll only damage future royalties if you forge [sorry!] ahead on this destructive course. Why don't you do something constructive instead, like try to find where the 'Oh costly...' lines came from?" Now that, if nothing else, would have made Mike sit up immediately and think "My God! Of course! I took the book round to Jenny's. Better go hot-foot round there and get it back so I can use it to prove to the newspapers that I'm the world's greatest forger. I hope Jenny's lad hasn't binned it." But what happens instead? Mike engages Alan Gray to help him prove it, when he could have cut out the middle man and simply retrieved the defective volume from Jenny's and taken it straight to Brough. And Shirley gets the library discovery story along with the suspicious bit of news that he had the book anyway, effectively neutralising the idea that he was a terrific researcher and replacing it with the idea that he is an idiotic liar. Except that if Mike is innocent, and Shirley was 100% convinced of that anyway and he knew it, then perhaps he was just being completely up-front, on one of his friendlier and more co-operative days, and wanted to share with her the amazing realisation that he'd had this obscure quote indoors all along. If Mike is innocent he was probably also very well aware that this revelation would not ultimately change Shirley's mind about that.
And John, you wrote about it being too much of a remarkable coincidence that Mike could stumble on 'two lines of verse in the middle of a prose essay in the middle of a prose book in the middle of thousands and thousands of books in the Liverpool library...'. But wouldn't vol.2's spine have read, 'English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674'? And would there really have been 'thousands and thousands' of books there for Mike to flip through, if he narrowed his search down to those which actually had 'Poetry' in the title?
I do of course appreciate that Mike's Sphere volume (if Melvin's opinion is correct and it was defective from the start) is the single strongest piece of circumstantial evidence for Mike's knowledge that the diary is a modern fake. I know it speaks volumes for RJ and others. But if it's also the only piece of real evidence Mike was able to use, it raises as many questions for me as it answers.
It's very easy to sit back and say, "the evidence suggests that Mike gave our penman the quote and that's how it got in the diary". But looking at the whole picture always brings me back to my original serious doubts about Mike having any involvement at all.
Love,
Caz
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 26 December 2001 - 11:07 am
Hi Caz,
I agree with most everything you say here about the weird way Mike treats the Sphere Guide if it is indeed (and he knows it is in 1994) his best piece of evidence to support his forgery claim. And even if he doesn't want to claim he did it -- it then becomes the single piece of incriminating material evidence against him at the very least, the one physical object that would seem to link him to the forgery. So what's he do with it? Give it to some kid? Hello? This hardly seems like a guy who is worried about it being discovered. And then he actually tells Shirley he has it? He himself unearths and brings forward the most damning piece of evidence against him and then, when he does want to confess publicly, doesn't even mention it exists? That's what confuses me thoroughly.
My point about the "Sphere Guide in the library" problem is slightly different. Regardless of what the spine might have said, as soon as anyone even looked at any page of any volume of such books, they would see that the book was filled with prose, not poetry. It would make no sense, then, to look for two lines of poetry in that book. And, since Mike would not have known the time period that the poem came from, the dates on the spine would have been meaningless to him. And even if all Mike had to do was look at all the books in the library that had poetry in them, and maybe poetry in the title, yes, there could possibly have been thousands (depending on the size of that library, of course). A thousand or more at least, I would think. And a book of critical essays on "Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674" would have been one of the very least likely places to look and one of the very least likely places to find the lines, among all those books that would have contained verse, as I've just mentioned. And then there'd be all of Shakespeare's plays, for instance, and all of Marlowe's, and all of Milton and so very many others....
But no, Mike finds the very two lines out of nowhere, conveniently excerpted right in the middle of the Christopher Ricks essay in the middle of a collection of prose articles in the middle of a entire library, and then it turns out that he has that very same book at home.
That's what troubles me about the library story.
But then, I am also troubled by a guy who allegedly used the Sphere Guide to forge the diary, who allegedly knew it was the single most damning piece of physical evidence linked to him in the case, and then didn't get rid of the books or hide them or keep them a secret, but casually gave the very volume that held the incriminating lines to a friend's kid and then told the very person he wanted to convince of the diary's authenticity that he had the volume all along.
And then, when he finally changes his mind and wants to confess and convince the world that he forged this thing, fails to mention in the newspaper interview that he gives to prove his complicity, the only piece of material evidence he knows exists that links him directly to the book's production.
That's what happened.
I cannot explain what happened.
But I had a wonderful Christmas and got excellent presents and ate excellent food and although the weather sucks at the moment (55 degrees and cloudy sucks, for here), my Bucs hammered Scott's Saints mercilessly and are still in the playoff hunt and that is a genuine Christmas miracle.
Now I must go and rest.
All the best to everyone,
--John
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 26 December 2001 - 01:11 pm
Caz--Hi. Three points.
1. Isn't your chronology speculative? I asked Shirley Harrison when she sent Mike Barrett to the Liverpool Library. She made no note of it, and doesn't remember now exactly when it was.
2. You're still ignoring the very real possibility that the Sphere was in the upstairs repository where Mike could not have looked. If this is the case, your entirely scenerio falls apart.
3. [Main Point]. The main point I tried to make with John, which he evidently didn't understand [my fault] is that I completely disagree with the entire approach and the premise on which this speculation is being built.
You claim to know Mike's motives. But you don't. And I don't either. And we are all in completely dangerous waters when we try to access objective data while believing that we know how Mike's inner world works.
I tried to express this idea to John, who responded 'Yes, RJ, but still none of that begins to explain why a guy -- one who wanted so badly for it to be known that he committed this forgery'...etc.
In other words, back to more subjective speculation. 'Mike wanted so badly'...
How does anyone know what Mike's motives are?
Fact A. Mike contacted Harold Brough and confessed to writing the Maybrick diary.
Fact B. Mike produced no evidence that convinced Harold Brough that he had forged the Maybrick diary.
These are indisputable facts. But from these, you can't say:
C. Mike "wanted so badly for it to be known" that he forged the Maybrick diary [that he would have been willing to reveal any particular fact].
and certainly not
D. Mike producing no evidence on this occasion somehow proves that he doesn't have information about the creation of the diary.
At best all we have is Mike acting irrationally. And we've seen that many times. Indeed, all that is really known about Mike is that he makes impulsive, irrational, and contradictory statements. He keeps everyone guessing. On one given day he might claim the diary is a forgery. On the next he may claim his belief that it is genuine. He might make strange, contradictory, and completely mystifying statements. But none of this proves what 'he wants' or 'what he knows'.
My position is very simple, really.
I believe the Maybrick diary is a recent forgery. 1989 +/- 2 years. I've already listed my reasons for believing this.
Mike Barrett & Anne Graham are the ones that came forward with the Maybrick diary. It is inconceivable to me that they do not know where a recently forged document came from. John has made much of the fact that there is no proof that either Mike or Anne forged the diary. I concede this point. But this is ignoring the fact that if the diary is recently forged they must not be revealing what they DO know about its origins. Which would be true even if they merely found it on a park bench.
So clearly, Mike and/or Anne know something about the Maybrick diary's origins.
I think it's Mike.
And yes, it's mainly because of the Sphere volume, but also because of Devereux having Mike's copy of RWE's book, the diary possibly containing Diamine, and a statement of Mike's that claims that Bernard Ryan's study of Maybrick was used. And I am completely dubious about any claims that pretend to know how Mike's most inscrutable mind works, and then go on to make claims based on this belief. All I know is that Mike came up with the citation for a mysterious quote in the Maybrick diary, and even produced a book that showed where it is very likely to have come from.
Since either Mike or Anne is likely to know the origins of the diary, I don't know why this is particular surprising. I guess I agree with Melvin, 'it's good enough for me.'
Best wishes, RJ Palmer
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 26 December 2001 - 02:59 pm
Hi RJ,
You cite me saying that Mike was a guy, "who wanted so badly for it to be known that he committed this forgery that he actually went to the newspapers to tell them his story."
And then chastise me for speculating as to motive.
But, RJ, he did go to the papers. If Mike did not want it to be known that he committed this forgery, why would he go to the newspapers and tell the world that he committed this forgery?
I don't need to speculate as to whether or not Mike wanted the world to know that he committed this forgery. He clearly did, since he told the world he did.
Now, you may say that none of us know the reason Mike wanted the world to know (or think) that he committed this forgery. I agree with that. We don't.
But we do know that that's what he wanted the world to know, since he took all the trouble to tell the world that by going to the newspaper and telling his story.
And the fact is that Mike wanted the world to know that he committed this forgery and yet he did not mention what he allegedly knew was the single most damning piece, indeed perhaps the only, piece of material evidence in support of what he wanted the world to know.
And we know he wanted the world to know this (it's not speculation) because he told the world he did this.
So now, people are quite logically asking why a guy who clearly wanted the world to know he committed this forgery (why else tell the paper?) did not mention the single piece of evidence that supports the version of events he wanted the world to know.
That's not asking for psychological speculation, necessarily. It could just be asking whether the absence of such a seemingly important and significant detail might indicate that Mike was not telling the world the complete truth about his involvement in this forgery.
It seems perfectly reasonable to ask, if Mike knew the Sphere Guide existed, if Mike used the Sphere Guide himself in creating the document, if Mike knew he had the Sphere Guide, if Mike was telling the world he forged the diary (he was), why wouldn't Mike use or even mention the Sphere Guide when he told the world he was the forger -- since it was the single piece of material evidence that supported this claim?
And neither you nor anyone else around here has offered anything like a rational or satisfactory answer to that question. And that is why Caz and I and others still have serious doubts about how much Mike did or did not know.
Then, in your account of what you believe to be the case, you say, concerning Mike and Anne:
"It is inconceivable to me that they do not know where a recently forged document came from."
But why? What, logically, is inconceivable about this? If indeed, someone handed you a recently forged document and then refused to tell you anything about where it came from, you would be holding a recently forged document and you would not know where it came from. That seems to me simply conceivable. I'm not saying it happened in this case, but it is certainly not inconceivable. (Insert Princess Bride joke here.)
And you say this about Mike and his behavior:
"But none of this proves what 'he wants' or 'what he knows'."
And I agree completely.
None of this proves anything at all about what Mike did or did not know. Which is what we have been saying all along. It merely raises more questions, it leaves doubts, it remains contradictory -- even simply backwards (he tells Shirley that he owns the Sphere Guide, yet he wants her to believe in the diary's authenticity; he never mentions the Guide as supporting evidence to Brough, yet he wants Brough and his readers to believe that he forged the diary).
So you are correct, nothing here proves anything about what Mike did or did not know. But it certainly raises a host of serious and fascinating questions.
And that is where we are.
And whether or not anything is "good enough for you," the situation remains the same. We have no reliable evidence linking Mike or Anne directly to the production of this book other than the Sphere Guide, and its evidentiary value is problematized by the specific historical circumstances and behaviors we have just been discussing.
The questions as to whether the ink is Diamine, and when precisely Mike first mentions Ryan and what he's learned between the time he walks into Doreen's office and then, and when exactly Mike first learned the quote was in the Sphere Guide, are all questions that remain unanswered, even by our main man Melvin, whom you cite, and who, like everyone else around here, still has not come up with a plausible composition scenario which both makes sense and answers all the questions -- like who held the pen and when were the lines composed and who bought the pen nibs and ink and where and how was the scrapbook acquired if the auction house didn't sell it and doesn't do business the way Mike claims and who knew enough to get the materials that would pass scientific muster and, perhaps most importantly, who besides Mike and Anne would even have bothered to participate in this thing (if we agree that at least someone else must have) and for what motive, considering they have apparently seen neither money nor fame nor anything else from this project and never will?
Actually the state of reliable knowledge surrounding the specific and detailed and complete history of this book and its production (and the involvement of Mike and Anne in that production) is pathetic.
It may be good enough for you, RJ. But there are way, way too many unanswered questions for me. And I don't think I'm alone.
All the best,
--John
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 27 December 2001 - 06:15 am
Hi RJP, John, Caz
There are no doubt many reasons why Mike may not have remembered the Sphere book and its telltale quote and RJP is correct when he says that speculating about why Mike never produced the Sphere book is pointless psychoanalysing. But the point is that according the Mike he did not forget the quote or its source. He knw about it. Moreover, he’d lodged the book with his solicitor so that he could produce it when he needed to do so. So, it is fair and just to ask why he therefore never produced it, even when he was in desperate need of such evidence.
But is seems to me, RJP, that you are omitting from your reasoning that there appears to be no evidence apart from the Crashaw quote that Mike ever knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery. Drunk, suffering a hangover, or whatever, none of these possibilities explains why Mike never provided a clear and straightforward narrative of how the ‘diary’ was conceived and executed.
Okay, I can accept that he never did realise the significance of the Crashaw quote and never lodged the book with his solicitor. I can accept that he forgot about it or never recalled it when hungover, or whatever. But I find it very hard to understand why he never explained how he’d come up with the idea of the forgery or otherwise become involved with it.
(And one may also add that the story he did tell appears to lack substantiation and the people to whom he confessed, notably Harold Brough, were singularly unimpressed, observing that Mike couldn’t even answer simple questions. Furthermore, if we assume that Mike’s involvement in the actual creation of the ‘diary’ didn’t extend beyond providing the Crashaw quote, then on balance it seems improbable that he’d have forgotten about it.)
I think you are obliged to answer this problem – and since psycholanalysing Mike is out of bounds – you need to produce evidence of his knowledge of or complicity in the forgery before you can positively assert that Mike knew about the quote prior to producing it.
You see, unless a convincing argument can be made to explain Mike’s apparent profound ignorance about the conception and execution of the forgery or until it can be demonstrated that he wasn’t profoundly ignorant about it, the situation seems to be that Mike was not a participant in the forgery and did not know that the ‘diary’ was a forgery. That in fact Mike knew nothing whatever of the ‘diary’s’ history prior to receiving it from Tony Devereux
I’m not saying that Mike was completely ignorant of the origins if the ‘diary’, just that the evidence overwhelmingly appears to indicate that he didn’t. And that if you want to suggest otherwise then you must produce evidence that indicates that Mike was aware that the ‘diary’ was a forgery. And if you can’t do that then once must seek a rational explanation of Mike’s ‘discovery’ of the Crashaw quote in the context of Mike’s ignorance.
And there is a third possibility, the one you haven’t thus far included in your reasoning, namely that someone other than Mike took the quote from the Sphere book. Anyone who had access to the book could have taken the quote from it.
And to conclude with a wild piece of speculation, let’s assume that Mike came across the Sphere book in his attic, opened it – and it fell open to the quote because of the binding defect – and discovered the quote. Elated, he makes his discovery known to Shirley and in order to represent himself as the great researcher, lies about finding the quote in the library.
All well and good thus far.
But why does he then announce that he’s got a copy of that very book? That very admission makes it look unlikely that he’d discovered the quote through hard graft. Is this just an example of Mike’s stupidity? Or might it be an example of guileless honesty?
What is worrying is if the whole scenario is true – Shirley asked Mike to find the quote, Mike visited the library and flicked through books on the shelf, flicked through the Sphere book and really did find the quote therein (did the library copy have the same binding defect as Mike’s?), and in complete innocence of any implications announced the coincidence that he had that very book at home.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 27 December 2001 - 10:38 am
Hi All,
Thanks John and Paul. You have addressed nearly all the points I wanted to put to RJ.
Hi RJ,
You asked if my chronology is speculative. Well yes of course, to a certain extent. But I did write:
'This is apparently around the time...' and: 'At some point, Shirley...' tells Mike to do something constructive like find where 'Oh costly...' comes from. [My emphasis]
Shirley must have told Mike to search at some point before 30th September 1994, which I believe was the date he first told anyone he'd found the quote in the library. And I believe Jenny did confirm Mike's story about taking the books round sometime that summer. And Mike did confess to the papers in late June. So we are still left with the facts of what Mike did with his only hard piece of incriminating evidence. He gave it away and had to retrieve it if he wanted to use it to bolster his confession. Even if he had forgotten its significance, Shirley's plea (whenever she made it) would have reminded him.
What doesn't make sense to me is why Mike confessed if he was guilty. Any ideas RJ? I know you don't agree with guessing Mike's motives, but could you at least agree he must have had a good one for coughing? If it was to get his own involvement off his chest, why tell lie after lie about it (ones that were checkable, like the auctioneers) and make his role much grander than it really was? And again, while confessing to this grander role, if his only input was 'Oh costly...', it doesn't seem feasible to me that he would not have used it from the start, or that he could possibly have forgotten about it until Shirley asked him to find it. And RJ, you accuse others of underestimating Mike's intelligence. To explain how Mike ignored or forgot the book initially, but had the sense to use it later, to such good effect, you have to speculate, just as much as I do, about Mike's state of mind or his knowledge during 1994.
As John has said, Mike obviously did want his initial confession to be believed. And he did eventually use his Sphere volume 2 to help him be believed (but at a time when he backed down from his 'single-handed' claim). What possible reason could there be for Mike holding back such evidence until his later, diluted, statements, if he knew about its existence while he first toyed with the idea of saying he forged it himself?
I think this problem does need to be addressed so that nothing about Mike is taken for granted by any of us.
And what if Tony Devereux did give Mike the diary without telling him anything else? Lies usually suffer distortion and become inconsistent as they are told again and again over time, but this story (basically supported by Anne - I know, not enough) has been one of the most consistent of Mike's over the years. And so bad that if it isn't true it once again suggests Mike didn't have much of a clue and was a strange choice of vehicle for the penman/composer.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 10:22 am | | Hi, all:
Because of the loss of some messages posted after Caz's message of Thursday, 27 December 2001 - 10:38 am, my message in regard to Mike Barrett and the Sphere volume was lost and she has asked me to recreate it for Keith Skinner's benefit. So here it is.
It seems to me that Mike's apparent odd behavior in regard to the Crashaw quote that appears in the Diary, "Oh costly intercourse of death," in not saying that he had the Sphere volume containing the quote when he confessed to Harold Brough in June 1994 and his willingness to hunt for the quote in the Liverpool Central Library on behalf of Shirley Harrison when he actually owned a book containing the quote, is explainable if he never really grasped the significance of the quote. That is, he did not realize that the quote comes from such an arcane source, i.e., from Richard Crashaw, a lesser known seventeenth century poet and not even one of Crashaw's better known works. This could mean that Mike had nothing to do with the production of the Diary, appearances notwithstanding that he happened to own a copy of the Sphere volume containing a passage from Crashaw's poetry containing the very quote.
I note as an additional indication that Mike did not grasp the significance of the quote's appearance in the Diary that even as late as his April 1999 Cloak & Dagger Club appearance Mike had to be prodded to talk about the Crashaw quote. It might thus be just a strange coincidence that Mike happened to own the Sphere volume containing the Crashaw quote, although I suppose that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that his wife Anne might have used the Sphere volume without Mike's knowledge and put the quote in the Diary if she is behind the hoax and not Mike. On the other hand, anyone who had the Sphere volume could have put the quote in, e.g., Tony Devereaux or someone who knew Tony.
I should clarify that I added the speculation about Anne or someone else obtaining the quote other than Mike and this was not in my original post. My main thrust here though is to point to Mike's apparent ignorance of the importance of the Crashaw quote which might indicate he had no complicity in the forgery.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 11:11 am | | Thanks very much Chris.
I would just like to add that the supposed purpose of Mike's appearance at the Smoke & Stagger in April 1999 was to prove once and for all his involvement in forging the diary. He said he intended to do so by producing his receipt for the scrapbook in which the diary is written. But (unsurprisingly to many of us) he never did. I agree that he didn't appear to appreciate even then that his most persuasive argument would be that he supplied the Crashaw lines for inclusion in the diary from his own copy of the Sphere volume (if that's what he did) - not that he bought the scrapbook from auctioneers that had already showed the investigators that he could not have done any such thing.
And don't forget, when we are considering whether Mike ever purchased Diamine ink, or any other type, he told his captive audience that it was "simple" to make it right for the job in hand - "just add sugar!"
Perhaps the scientists among us could comment on that one.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 01:29 pm | | I’d just like to repeat my own observation on this, namely that it isn’t so much Mike’s failure to produce the Crashaw quote that concerns me, but rather the fact that he never gave a coherent account of how the ‘diary’ forgery had been conceived and executed.
Producing evidence is one thing, but simply saying ‘well, it all began one wet Sunday afternoon. We’d watched a programme about forgery on the telly and I just turned to Anne and said…’ is quite another.
Taking this in conjunction with his inability to answer simple questions, as observed by Harold Brough, and the fact that his subsequent claims about the auction house were not substantiated, and I think there are serious grounds for questioning whether Mike played any part in the forgery.
The question is, is this all outweighed by his ownership of the Sphere book?
(Mike’s behaviour at the C&D is exceedingly curious because we were informed by Melvin Harris – presumably on the authority of Alan Grey - that Mike recognised the significance of the Sphere book long before he broke with Anne and had accordingly lodged it with his solicitor. But even if we accept that this isn’t true, Mike did understand the significance of the Sphere book in September 1994 did he? Wasn’t that the time when Alan Grey contacted Mike’s solicitor and confirmed that a book had been lodged there? And didn’t Mike actually tell Shirley or someone that the Sphere book was with his solicitor and that he’d have to fetch it? If he understood the significance of the Sphere book in 1994, then his behaviour in 1999 doesn’t much matter does it. On the other hand, what did go on in September 1994. Is there any independent suggestion supporting the Alan Gray derived story?) |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 01:52 pm | | Hi, Paul:
I think we can agree that in retrospect many of Mike's actions appear to be inexplicable and contradictory. The point that I was making earlier is that even if Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor he does not seem to have realized that the Crashaw quote was of crucial significance, that it may be a way to pin down who did the forgery. Thus again when he confessed to Harold Brough he never mentioned the Crashaw quote, which one would have expected him to do if he realized that knowing the source of the line of poetry "Oh costly intercourse of death" could be proof positive that he was the clever little forger. I think Shirley's asking him to look for the quote told him that the quote had some importance, and thus this led him to lodge the Sphere book containing the quote with his solicitor, although even then it seems to me it did not dawn on him that the Crashaw quote's appearance in the Diary could be of crucial importance in possibly identifying who did the forgery. Mike's (to me) evident cluelessness about the degree of importance of the quote might, as I tried to imply in my last post, be rooted both in Mike's ignorance of arcane seventeenth century English poetry and his lack of knowledge of how such an out-of-the-way line of poetry could have landed in the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 02:41 pm | | Hi Chris
Sorry, Chris, you did indeed make your meaning perfectly clear in your last post and I agree with what you said. I was merely adding to your remarks my own observation that it isn’t only Mike’s apparent failure to appreciate the significance of his possession of the Sphere book as evidence of his participation in the forgery, but Mike’s overall inability to tell a coherent story about how he thought of the forgery and carried it out that makes one question whether he played any role in the forgery at all.
If Mike was the forger then I wouldn’t be particularly worried by his failure to appreciate the significance of the Sphere book and I’d be inclined to agree with RJP that Mike simply forgot about it. I would not take this view if the quote was Mike’s only contribution to the forgery, as he has also claimed, since Mike’s character suggests that he would have remembered that and been proud of it.
The question for me, therefore, is whether or not Mike had displayed any kind of ‘inside’ knowledge about the conception and execution of the forgery that would suggest that he was the forger or was otherwise involved in it. And as far as I can recall, the answer to that is no – except for his ownership of the Sphere book. So, does owning that book outweigh the evidence that Mike in fact knew zilch about the forgery? I don’t think it does, therefore I wonder if he ever (until he found it) knew the Sphere book contained the quotation.
And was the Sphere book ever lodged with his solicitor? Do we know this to be a fact? And at what point were we told that it had been lodged with his solicitor? |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 02 January 2002 - 05:04 pm | | Hi All,
Here's the problem. How do you tell the difference between someone who is genuinely clueless and someone who has learned to be very good at pretending to be clueless?
How do you tell the difference between a person who knows nothing and a smart person pretending to know nothing?
Is Mike fooling everyone, all the time? Is there really a master-player inside the thick and ponderous pleadings for drink and false bravado that you hear on the tape? Is the entire thing an elaborate con worthy of the greatest criminal actors? Or is Mike just as confused and single minded and driven by primal desires and inconsistent as a result of his own lack of knowledge as he appears?
Every time that Mike does something that suggests he knows less than he says he knows (forgets about the Crashaw book in the Brough interview, for instance, or gets confused about the details, or tells a story that doesn't check out about buying the scrapbook, or fails to answer simple questions about the process of composition and production, it is possible to simply say - he knows, but he doesn't want to say. He's playing us all. The dude is crafty. Or it becomes possible to say he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's making this up as he goes along because he doesn't know where the hell this thing came from. The dude is clueless.
But a question remains. From the outside (which is where we are), what would be the difference between these two opposite conclusions? What would genuinely entitle us to choose one over the other? In each case, the physical and material evidence would be the same (at least as we have it so far), so the choice between skilled dissimulation and simple, improvisatory lying becomes extraordinarily difficult. This might be the result of Mike's ability to manipulate his public appearance or it might be the result of dumb luck.
But as of know, it seems to be the problem we are left with when we try and read Mike Barrett.
And then there's Anne -- and a whole other set of questions that seem equally difficult and completely different.
We can of course always go back to the text -- always ask ourselves if these words on this page are likely to have been composed by the people we have met? There's no reliable answer to that question either, of course, but at least we can offer speculation as to why we'd be tempted to say yes or no. Likewise, we can ask about the execution of the project. Is this process, the acquisition of the appropriate nibs, the acquisition of ink that can at least pass scientific muster to some degree, the acquisition of the scrapbook, the use of historically consistent phraseology, the reading of the books about the two cases and the translation of the details into the melodrama of the entries, the creation of the letters on the page in a "passable" mock-Victorian hand, is the entire process one we can imagine Mike and/or Anne, all on their own, actually undertaking? (I say "all on their own," because if someone else is necessary, then the troublesome question of motive returns -- why would anyone else participate for, apparently, no money, no renown, nothing?)
Of course, if our answer is no, if neither Mike nor Anne strike us, admittedly subjectively, as people who would have or could have produced the object, then we're back to square one and facing a blank page.
I have no answers to any of these very unscientific or particularly reliable questions. I don't even have any strongly formed impressions concerning them. But they seem to be the questions that are still, after all this time, haunting us.
Now it's off to dinner.
All the best,
--John
PS: Scott -- thanks for the Bucs cheer, although I fear going into a cold Philly and a hard Vet Stadium turf in two weeks, for the wild-card game, will be too much for my warm-weather boys. Another first-round playoff loss is approaching. |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 03:54 am | | | John---Hello. Welcome back. If you wish to convince me that 'the physical and material evidence' is the same for Mike's involvement/non-involvement in the Maybrick hoax you'll have to come up with one thing. Namely, you'll have to come up with a copy of a book in your attic that has a binding defect on a page that contains the line 'the red right hand of slaughter'. When you do that, I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm going to keep on believing that Mike has inside knowledge of the Mabyrick hoax. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 06:29 am | | Hi RJ,
What on earth were you doing posting at 03.54 am?? You must be a worse insomniac than me.
Now I don't think, somehow, that if John comes up with that book under the circumstances you give, he will first give it away to a girlfriend's teenage son, then have to retrieve it a few months later to prove to you he had the 'red right hand' quote indoors, after telling others he'd just found it in his local library! But I guess stranger things happen.
As for what we know about what Mike did with his Sphere and when, it's really not that much. Melvin's assertion that he lodged it with his solicitor 'LONG BEFORE' his break-up with Anne and his confession doesn't hold up. If he means before Mike's June 1994 confession (which triggered off Anne's divorce proceedings) he must be wrong if the book was at Jenny's from around the end of May to the end of September. And he can't mean long before Mike's next confession, in January 1995, and the actual divorce, because that would be stating the obvious - we already knew that the Sphere volume had passed into Alan Gray's hands in early December 1994 in the office of Mike's solicitor.
Alan Gray may have confirmed that a book was lodged with Mike's solicitor when he checked around September 1994, but it has never to my knowledge been confirmed as the Sphere vol.2. And even if it was, I'm not sure that helps. Jenny has basically confirmed her and her son's part in Mike's story. So presumably (if he didn't know anything about the quote or its source at the end of June) he would have to have found the same book at the library in order to make the connection and realise his copy had been at Jenny's since before his initial confession and that he would need to retrieve it. (Anyone got a headache yet? )
We know Mike was telling people by 30th September 1994 that he'd found the quote in a library book. And on 12th October, he phoned Shirley to say he had now got his own copy back from Jenny and would be taking it that very afternoon, I seem to recall, to his solicitor with whom he had an appointment to discuss the divorce. The next thing we know is that in early December the book was handed to Alan Gray in the solicitor's office. And by this time it was known to be falling open at the 'O costly...' page.
One question, RJ.
When you said in one of the missing posts that perhaps Mike has never intended to make a 'full' confession (for fear of strangling the golden goose even more than he actually did by giving an empty one - I think 'true' versus 'false' might me more accurate in this case), can you give me some idea of what you think that 'full' or 'true' confession might, or ought to, consist of?
As John has said, Mike obviously did want to confess (in June 1994, January 1995, and yet again in April 1999), but you seem to think he might have been craftily trying to drop Feldy in it on each occasion while always holding back anything really incriminating so as to avoid dropping himself in it at the same time. A clever trick if one can pull it off. Yet you think the Sphere volume is sufficiently incriminating. This seems like a contradiction to me if you also think Mike has held back other details to avoid incriminating himself entirely. Why would he?
God, I hope I haven't just made things even more confusing than ever.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 07:18 am | | Hi John
We don’t have to choose one over the other do we? All we are doing is looking at possibilities to see where they lead, in this case at the possibility that Mike knew zilch about the ‘diary’, this possibility being based on Mike never having told a coherent story of how he conceived the forgery or otherwise became involved with it, etc., etc. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 08:02 am | | Hi Paul,
At some point, of course, we are bound to choose if we ever wish to arrive at a conclusion concerning who forged the diary. Until then, though, you are correct.
But my posing of the problem is also meant to demonstrate that as of now the choice remains impossible, because it also remains impossible, given the scant material evidence we have and the unreliability of the testimonial evidence we have, to discern a genuine lack of knowledge from its careful simulation in this case.
So yes, we are left "looking at possibilities to see where they lead," but we are also left in a situation where the possibilities could be explained by two directly conflicting readings (Mike didn't know enough to have done this / Mike always knows more than he presents), both of which hold up given the public performances and material evidence we have.
And RJ, Caz is logically correct in suggesting that Mike's ownership of the Sphere volume remains somewhat mitigated as an incriminating piece of evidence by his behavior with that volume during the time he was confessing and thereafter. Of course it remains evidence of Mike's involvement (the only material evidence, in fact, which is why is still seems inexplicable that he would not use it to support his confession), but it must also be weighed against Mike's inability to confess in any reliable or verifiable way and his apparent lack of perception regarding the book's significance, even as late as Chris George has mentioned, and, as I've said before, whether we can consider all the things required to create this forgery ("the acquisition of the appropriate nibs, the acquisition of ink that can at least pass scientific muster to some degree, the acquisition of the scrapbook, the use of historically consistent phraseology, the reading of the books about the two cases and the translation of the details into the melodrama of the entries, the creation of the letters on the page in a "passable" mock-Victorian hand") to be the likely work of the Mike we've met publicly (and that is one of the reasons why those who believe he is our forger, or one of our forgers, need the possibility of Mike as careful simulator, Mike as the brilliant actor always playing the fool).
It is not simply enough to say "the book exists, therefore Mike must have been involved." Even Melvin knew that (thus his relegation of Mike to "placer"). The book must be comprehensively fit into a plausible scenario that has Mike Barrett behaving the way he has and producing this object. No one has done that yet.
That's why it's not, as you say, "good enough for me." Far too many questions, many of them still utterly unanswerable, remain on all sides.
For instance, who wrote this book?
All the best,
--John |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 10:14 am | | John--Hello. Er. I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff. What exactly is 'passable mock-Victorian'? This seems like a nonsensical phrase to me. The handwriting experts consulted stated that the handwriting was not Victorian but a 20th Century hand. So why impart some alleged expertise on the part of the forgers by stating that it is passable mock-Victorian? It's like saying "it aint Latin, but it's a passable 'pig-Latin'". If a living breathing 21st Century gentleman like Mr. Kane has handwriting that closely resembles that of the diary, I think I would tend to withhold speculation that the diary shows any expertise on this point.
I would also add that the Oxford professor consulted by the London Times wasn't impressed by the diary's "historically consistent phraseology". In short, I guess I don't believe the average person is a dolt, and still am entirely skeptical at the claims that the diary demonstrates any expertise outside what one would expect from a forgery by a reasonably intelligent adult. It still seems pretty awful to me, and I don't think I'm alone here, either. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Caz--My insomnia is bad at times, but actually I was posting last night at 11:54 PM, and made it to sleep by midnight.
I promise that I've tried to understand your point about Mike's solicitor but it still seems utterly irrelevant to me. Even if Mike didn't lodge his book until yesterday what difference would it make?
It's not merely a matter of Mike 'discovering' the quote...it's also a matter of the quote making it's way into the diary in the first place.
We have a diary of Jack the Ripper with a smattering of Ripper/Maybrick facts and a bunch of repetitive doggerel verse. And then comes a complete surprise. A line from the middle of an obscure poem by a 17th Century religious poet. It's odd. Very odd. It's like finding Sanskirt graffitti in a log cabin in Kentucky.
The only reasonable explanation that I have seen offered for its appearance in the diary is that it was taking from the Sphere volume. And who had access to the volume? Only Mike & Anne. Mike who owned the volume before the Maybrick diary emerged, and Mike had a seeming fondness for pinching quotes from books. Devereux? It doesn't make any sense to transfer this to Devereux; he wasn't a visitor to the Barrett household [Anne barely knew him] and his own family claimed that he 'wasn't a reader'. I have a hard time believing that he would have ever borrowed a book of critical essays such as the Sphere. If he saw it at all, it was through Mike.
So the simple explanation is that the man who came forward with the Maybrick diary, the man that owned the Sphere, and the man who took part in the creation of the diary are one and the same: Mike Barrett.
The problem is as Paul Begg states. Mike has never came up with a consistent, believeable explanation about how the diary came into existance. And I can only assure you that I understand why this makes people skeptical. My belief in Mike's involvement in the forgery comes {despite} his confessions, not because of them.
To answer your question, [this is pending the handwriting results] but I currently believe Mike was involved with this with Devereux & Kane. I still don't believe Anne Graham has any connection to the diary whatsoever. I also believe that Mike originally thought that his confession might have been a money-making venture, leading to fame & a 'tell all' interview. But there was no market for it, and so he never revealed the full truth. If you look at Gray's letter printed in Shirley's book, he is telling Barrett that he has 'newspapers ready to make a deal', which make me think that Mike was asking for payment for full disclosure. There is a big market for bunk, but a very little market for de-bunking, so the truth never came out.
I'm really not trying to be troublesome here, I just sincerely believe this is the correct answer. Maybe someday we'll agree on the identity of the Ripper, at least. But I think I've really said all there is to say on my end, so I guess I'll sit back for a while and let others see what they can come up with. Happy New Year & cheers, RJ Palmer |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 10:36 am | | Hi John
Oh I know that at some point we are going to have to make a decision. It’s just that we aren’t being asked to make that decision right now and I wouldn’t want anyone to think that we are. We’re just being asked to consider the possibility that Mike didn’t know the ‘diary’ was a forgery and seeing where that possibility leads us.
Hi RJP
That Mike owned the Sphere book does not mean that he was the forger or involved in the forgery. Couldn't anyone with access to that book have taken the quote from it, especially as the alleged binding defect caused the book to open on that page? And as inherently unlikely as you may think this is, it really does have to be weighed against Mike’s apparent ignorance of anything to do with the forgery and failure to produce the Sphere book when desperate to prove he was the forger (which, as I said, I am sure he would have done if he’d provided the quote to the forgers). To say nothing of explaining his behaviour when he 'discovered' the quote. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 11:47 am | | Hi RJ:
Clarifications -- My reference to the "passable" hand is simply an awkward way of stating that no expert in either handwriting or literary history was able to say with any confidence that the hand was modern rather than Victorian. The writing was not simply and quickly dismissed as modern, nor was the ink, nor the pen, nor the language. Those are simple facts. Now, you can attribute all of these facts to luck if you'd like, in an effort to minimize what would have been necessary to produce the diary. But then your argument rests on a positing of luck rather than what the scientists and experts have and have not been able to simply and clearly demonstrate with certainty.
And the Oxford professor you mention, I believe, was Kate Flint, who found only two expressions that she even considered possibly anachronistic and both of those were later put into doubt. Say what you will, this seems like an awfully small number of such phrases if the thing was put together without at least some care given to the language.
Then you write:
"If a living breathing 21st Century gentleman like Mr. Kane has handwriting that closely resembles that of the diary, I think I would tend to withhold speculation that the diary shows any expertise on this point."
But of course, the "If..." clause that starts that sentence is completely undetermined. Consequently the statement can have no weight as an argument, since we have no real idea whether someone like Mr. Kane does have "handwriting that closely resembles that of the diary." Especially since his handwriting has never once been examined by any qualified expert or examiner and no results have ever been made available.
Finally, RJ, you say again "I still don't believe Anne Graham has any connection to the diary whatsoever." But you offer no real reason for this one. What makes you want to exclude Anne from all of this, since she, like Mike, had access to the Sphere Guide, was there for the alleged "discovery," had, we now know, some writing skill and seemed to have all the available conditions for being involved that Mike does. Yet you include one and exclude the other. Based on what reasons? I am genuinely curious.
And of course, nothing in your scenario concerning the involvement of Kane is supported by any reliable evidence whatsoever and the only evidence you might cite to link Tony to the enterprise is the existence of the RWE book (hardly even the beginning of any sort of case for the man's involvement), just as the only evidence you have against Mike remains the Sphere Guide and his constant lying (some of which might actually speak against his own knowledge).
So we have come nowhere. And we still have no real idea, based on anything sound or reliable, who wrote the book.
Cool.
All the best, everyone. It's good to have you all back,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Hi, RJ:
To clarify what I interpret that John Omlor means by a "passable mock-Victorian" hand, let me answer based on my study of the writing in the Diary and also my examination of the "new" samples of Gerard Kane's writing that were shown to the group at the Oxford "mini-summit" on the Maybrick Diary which I attended along with Peter Birchwood, Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, and Melvyn Fairclough on October 2, 2001.
As you know, R.J., these Kane writing samples are currently a point of discussion between Peter Birchwood and Alan Gray to see if Gray might allow us to make the writing samples public. In my view, there is a similarity between Kane's writing and the handwriting in the Diary, but it is also obvious to me that while Kane's writing tends to have some old-fashioned looking embellishments which differentiate his writing from the writing of the average modern-day English person taught in British schools, by comparison, certain traits in the handwriting found in the Diary have been emphasized to give the writing a definite "antique" appearance. I am talking, for example, about the overly long cross-strokes on the letter "t" and over-embellishment of the capital letter "D" and other capital letters. Now, although Victorian writers did put curlicues in the letter "D" as can be seen by looking at the Dear Boss letters, these flourishes are not as marked as those seen in the Diary which to my mind betrays the intention of the penman to over-eagerly try to simulate what they believed to constitute Victorian handwriting, whether or not that penman was Gerard Kane.
R.J., I probably should not speak for John Omlor, but from my perspective, again from my examination of the writing in the Diary and of Kane's writing (whether Kane wrote the Diary or not), I think John's statement that the Diary shows writing in a "passable mock-Victorian" hand is absolutely correct. I am also curious about John's recent statement that he had read that one expert who examined the Diary thought at least some these pseudo-Victorian embellishments were added after the initial writing was done. I would be interested in Shirley Harrison or Keith Skinner's reply on this possibility, and to find out whether we might be able to get some more information on the subject of possible later embellishment of the writing in the Diary.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 01:16 pm | | Hi Chris,
You write:
"I am also curious about John's recent statement that he had read that one expert who examined the Diary thought at least some these pseudo-Victorian embellishments were added after the initial writing was done."
I don't think that was me. It might have been and my mind might be playing tricks on me, but I can't remember writing this or reading this, although I did say that it appears to me that the Crashaw line might have been inserted on the page after the two full paragraphs had already been written and I think the idea that some of the trailing lines and other embellishments might have been put on after the composition was created is a fascinating one. I'd be delighted to hear anyone else's opinions about the "creation" of the handwriting effects and the layout itself as well.
If it was me, I wish I could remember where I read such a thing.
Yours, having an early senior-moment, I guess,
--John
PS: I agree with your characterization of the handwriting. I will wait, however, to say anything about anyone's writing in particular until someone qualified in such things actually looks at the writing of all involved. I do think , however, that some thought was clearly given to the appearance of the writing and its historical appropriateness, and that some thought was obviously given to the language and its historical appropriateness (what they couldn't quite avoid, I believe, were the modern, almost filmic plot constructions and melodramatic conceits of the serial killer), and that some thought was given to the historical appropriateness of the pen nibs and that some thought was given to the historical appropriateness of the ink and the paper, and that we still can't tell whether the Mike we all know and love (or Anne or Tony or anyone else we have met so far) is likely to have given this production this sort of thought. |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 01:32 pm | | Chris--Actually, that was me who made the statement about the embellishments being added later. I believe Paul Begg posted that the expert in question was Audrey Giles. I still don't see how this makes for a claim of expertise on the part of the forgers. I fully admit that I minimize the ability of those that composed the Maybrick diary. The bottom line is that two independent panels of experts [The Times group and the Rendell group] both came to a very quick conclusion that the diary was an obvious fake. I don't see how there is much of an argument that it is a master forgery outside the abilities of some clever adults.
Best wishes, RP |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 01:50 pm | | | Chris--I guess the bottom line is that I give the common folk more credit than most. In the history of hoaxes it has often been argued that this or that was beyond the abilities of the simple-folk [Cottingly Faries or the Fox Sisters or the well-known film of 'Big Foot', for instance], but time & time again the final denounment has proven that everday people are capable of great ingenuity in fooling the public. Or experts are capable of fooling themselves. I think the Maybrick Diary will be no different. RJ Palmer |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 02:24 pm | | Hi, John and R.J.:
Thanks for clarifying the matter of the possible embellishments of the handwritten text of the Diary, that it was R.J. who brought this matter up and that it was Paul Begg who identified Audrey Giles as the expert who evidently gave the opinion that some of the embellishments were evidently added later. I continue to think this might be a very important piece of evidence because I should think that it is a very rare phenomenon in authentic writing of the period in which the writing has been embellished later.
John, while I respect your wish, as you must, to withhold judgement on the Kane samples until expert opinion has been brought to bear on them, I am pleased that we agree that we both believe that there is an evident attempt by the writer of the Diary to make both the actual handwriting and the content of the document appear old to modern-day readers.
Now if we can only figure out the truth about the bizarre appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Diary. I for one have been playing around with various anagrams of names.
Incidentally, John, following your point that you thought the Crashaw quote may have been added on the page of the Diary on which it appears after the rest of the writing had been completed in that page, I have looked again at the passage. Although you said you thought the writing appeared smaller as if it was made smaller to fit it in, I did not think so. Yes there may be marginally smaller lettering to that line of script but to me I did not think it had been inserted at a later time but looked of a piece with the writing preceding and following it.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Chris and RJ,
RJ, you write: "I don't see how there is much of an argument that it is a master forgery outside the abilities of some clever adults."
It's clearly not a master forgery and so the question remains how clever would the people who created this document (who found the scrapbook and the ink and the pen nibs that could all pass muster, historically speaking, and who read the books and created the language and who wrote out the document) had to have been and how "clever" do we think Mike or Tony or anyone else is likely to be.
And, RJ, couldn't Anne have been that clever, if Mike could? If not, why not?
Chris, it still seems to me that the Crashaw line is in a slightly smaller hand, as if it is somehow trying to fit there (just like "chickens running around with their heads cut off," stuck-in lower on the same page), but we'll have to call that a difference in the eye of the beholder, I guess. At least you must admit the spacing is slightly more compacted between the two lines than it is on the rest of the page (perhaps because it is supposed to be a poem).
Anyway, I'm pleased to see I hadn't written the thing about the flourishes and then forgotten it. I was beginning to think my mind was slipping as I read page after page this week preparing for the beginning of a new semester and all new courses next week.
As to why the quote -- it still seems to me that the phrase probably just seemed, to someone, to link death and sex, and that undoubtedly struck them as wonderfully Ripperesque, especially if the Ripper happened to be a jealous husband killing whores in a weird sort of displaced revenge against his adulterous wife.
Ah well, as one who has had students tell him, with great confidence, that lines in Shakespeare are really about the most unexpected things, this particular secular interpretation of the line shouldn't surprise me at all, I suppose, no matter how offensive Crashaw might have found it.
Off to more reading,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 04:30 pm | | Hi All
Audrey Giles was indeed the handwriting expert who noted that the diarist had made some effort to fake a Victorian-hand.
However, RJP, what her conclusion means is that the forger (a) realised that a Victorian hand would look different from a modern one, (b) knew or found out what a Victorian hand looked like, and (c) made some effort to imitate it. Whilst this does not mean that the forger was a ‘master forger’, it does mean that the forger was clever enough to think of these things, clever enough to know or find out what the changes between Victorian and modern handwriting were and clever enough to emulate them. This doesn't make him (or her) a ‘master forger’, but someone who didn’t just fling the ‘diary’ together over a wet weekend.
And I'm afraid that I think when Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor isn’t ‘utterly irrelevant’, but is actually quite vital. You see, if Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor at any time prior to announcing his discovery of the Crashaw quote then he quite clearly recognised the significance of owning the Sphere book at the time of and perhaps before he lodged the book. But if he did not lodge the book with his solicitor until after the announcement or perhaps never lodged it with him at all, then there is no evidence that he ever at any time recognised the significance of owning the book.
So, if Mike did realise the significance of owning the Sphere book and did lodge it with his solicitor, you have to explain why he never mentioned it when, as seems generally agreed, he desperately wanted to prove he was the forger. In order to explain this you have invented a scenario in which Mike was playing us all in an effort to make money. But frankly this scenario seems to me to have very little to support it. The evidence we do have is that Mike was desperate to shaft Feldman.
And if Mike didn't realise the significance of owning the book then he evidently never lodged it with his solicitor and all that story is a lie. So when, if ever, did Mike realise the significance of owning the Sphere book?
And even if your theory that Mike was hoping to make money from the confession, at what point do you think he hoped this? As far as we know, the 'diary' had made him more cash than he'd ever seen in one place before - why (and when) would he have hoped he'd make more from a confession? It doesn't really make sense in the scenario we have.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 05:39 pm | | Hi guys
It might interest you to know that Mike Barratt was arrested on New Year's Day on a charge of drink driving.
It might also interest you to know that the "Mike Barratt" involved was, in fact, 1980's songster and pop musician "Shakin' Stevens". Apparently it's his real name. Oh, how my sides ached when I read that in the morning newspaper.
Apparently some posts have gone missing, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference to you guys, especially RJ who has just picked up the ball where he left it and is currently running faster than Ryan Giggs down the left flank with little observation of what stands in his way.
But then that is the RJ we all know and love, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
John Omlor - You make a remarkably good job of refuting some of RJ's claims, so much so that I was thinking of recruiting you to the "Diary is genuine" club. It's quite exclusive at the moment. But then you go and spoil your candidacy with some of your later posts. Never mind. But it did prompt in me the thought that, as you are now able to admit that (if the diary is a forgery) there is evidence of more preparation than has previously been admitted, then I should be graceful enough to reveal some of my own thoughts (few and far between as they are) even if they are damaging to my own support of the diary. I would have said 'even if they added nothing to my argument', but then I am sure that Christopher T. George would contend that nothing I post adds any weight to any of my arguments!
Anyway, to the point in question. When listening to the tapes, Mike has it that he suggested the Blue Coat Art Shop as the place where he bought the ink only because it is the first one that is reached if one enters the one way system in Liverpool (presumably if one enters it from near Mike's old house). Therefore he is basically saying that he did not put forward the suggestion that the ink is diamine for any other reason than out of sheer luck.
And that is when the thought hit me.
Alec Voller has it that the ink in the diary is ".....definitely a manuscript ink. And...Diamine Manuscript ink is the only one of it's kind for many a long year....".
In support of my beliefs, Alec Voller says that the diary ink is not Diamine. But it is a manuscript ink. And Diamine is also a manuscript ink. And yet again Mike Barrett (or as I will now refer to him - "Shaky") has enjoyed inexplicable luck in selecting a shop at random that sells a manuscript ink.
I don't go in art shops as a rule, but last time I did I think I saw a bottle of "Quink" in one. So if I was going to confess to forging the diary (without having done any research) that would be the one that I would lean towards. And of course my forgery confession would be over before it had begun. But Mike (sorry, 'Shaky') manages to choose a shop that sells a manuscript ink, even if it is not the one in the diary.
I really don't know where I am going with this, I just hope that someone has had the good grace to read it all and may be able to make some sense of my muddled thoughts.
Christopher T. G. - You argue in an earlier post that Gerard Kane's handwriting is "similar" to that in the diary. Actually Chris, as you will remember, Paul Feldman published a letter undoubtedly written by James Maybrick in which the handwriting was almost identical to that in one written by "the ripper", (the Galashiels letter).
And, notwithstanding that PHF has made much of trying to prove that Maybrick's will was a forgery, Shirley Harrison writes on P.332:
"There appears, to my untrained eye, a clear relationship between the Galashiel's letter and Maybrick's will. Bill Waddell, former curator of the Scotland Yard Black Museum, has a lifetime's experience of forgery and is convinced that they are one and the same.
So, again, the handwriting debate rages. And you don't have to be a handwriting expert to put the diary alongside an undoubtedly Victorian document and see that it passes muster.
And to maintain the 'flourishes' and the long t bars for such a long document would require tremendous concentration and would undoubtedly result in a slip, an example of which isn't to be found.
Oh go on then, whilst I'm here, take a look at those letters if you will p.306/307 Feldman and compare the capital "I" with those as written in the diary. Then look how he forms the lower case 'g' in the galashiel's letter......until he comes to the line "...my nice little games", where I defy any of you to say that 'games' does not look more like 'James'. And, as Feldman has it, we know that Maybrick enjoyed playing 'games' with his name.
So, as we enter 2002, you - "the detractors" appear to have in general conceded that Mike had no involvement in the forging of the diary, thus negating the 'importance' of the Crashaw quote and the Sphere volume (apart from RJ).
And yet you still talk of the diary as if it must be a hoax. Sorry John but it's got to be said... It ain't necessarily so!
Of late you guys have been doing a great job of destroying the "Mike for forger" theory (after, I may add, spending months arguing with me that Mike must have forged it) and yet your pride will not even let you concede the point that the diary could be genuine.
Because it could. In fact it is.
John Omlor, you write "And we still have no real idea....who wrote the book".
Yes we do John. It was James Maybrick.
And James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.
And may I add that those of you who are basing your theories around "Mike did this"/"Anne didn't do that"/"Devereux did the other" type ideas must remember that anything you have about Tony Devereux invariably comes from Mike Barrett. And so you are guilty of believing Mike when it suits you and discounting him when it doesn't.
And there I shall rest for the evening as Kenneth Branagh is currently doing a passable (not mock) imitation of Shackleton on Channel 4.
Regards
Peter.
P.S. As it now seems to be par for the course to post our sporting comments after the main body of our post......yessssss!!!!! Come on you reds!!!! The might of Manchester is now above Liverpool in the table, and all we have to do is topple Carps' beloved Leeds. 2 points in it, that's all, just 2 points.
December 10 - Liverpool are 11 points clear of Man Utd with one game in hand.
January 02 - Man Utd are 1 point clear of Liverpool.
Sorry Chris, but we just can't seem to lose that Premiership Crown even when we try to! |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 06:07 pm | | Hi Peter,
Putting aside the silliness of your claims about Maybrick writing the diary (assertions which cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever) and your claims about Maybrick writing some Ripper letter which itself has no evidence supporting it as being from the killer (and how you can argue anything about the real Maybrick's handwriting at all, when it's clearly not the handwriting in the bloody diary anyway, remains completely beyond me), I just want to address one mischaracterization of my position that you offer above.
You say:
"So, as we enter 2002, you - "the detractors" appear to have in general conceded that Mike had no involvement in the forging of the diary, thus negating the 'importance' of the Crashaw quote and the Sphere volume (apart from RJ)."
I, for one, have conceded no such thing. Sometimes, you should actually read what I write more carefully. I have argued that the evidence of Mike's involvement remains very thin and that there is certainly not enough to prove he was involved. But this is no way the same as arguing that Mike was not involved. I would never make such a claim. It remains perfectly possible that Mike was involved in this thing. There is simply not enough evidence to support this conclusion yet and his behavior raises problems about his likely involvement and those problems have not been solved.
And even if Mike was not involved, that would in no way negate "the 'importance' of the Crashaw quote and the Sphere volume." The Crashaw quote remains at least likely to have come from the Sphere Guide whether Mike was involved in the forgery or not. The two lines in the diary are the lines cited by Ricks in the essay on Herbert. They are from an obscure poem and they are from the middle of that poem. yet they are excerpted and isolated on the page in the Guide and they appear in the diary. And the Guide was in the house of the people who brought forth the diary. These circumstances have not changed and therefore the Guide remains a vitally important piece of evidence and the most likely source for the lines.
Also, to get the record straight, I have certainly not spent months arguing with you that Mike must have forged it. In fact, if you read the archives, you'll see that ever since I have been here, I have consistently and without exception argued that the claim that Mike forged it has not only not been proven, the evidence to make the claim has barely begun to be acquired and the case against Mike as forger remains almost completely unevidenced and unsubstantiated in any responsible or reliable way. That has always been my position, despite the fact that I do believe there are very good reasons for believing the diary to be a complete hoax and despite the fact that I have also insisted that there is not a single reason whatsoever, not s single document, not a single shred of evidence of any sort, that would allow any reasonable person to link this diary to the real James Maybrick in any way.
Let's be clear here Peter. Arguing that there is insufficient evidence to claim in any responsible or thorough or careful or objective way that Mike was involved in this forgery, even to argue that the evidence is contradictory and might actually argue against Mike being involved, as Paul has recently done, in no way is the same or even similar to arguing that the diary has anything at all to do with the real Ripper crimes or the real James Maybrick (both of which remain completely and utterly unlinked to this object).
So forget that thought.
One other thing. You write: "And to maintain the 'flourishes' and the long t bars for such a long document would require tremendous concentration and would undoubtedly result in a slip, an example of which isn't to be found."
This is nonsense. It would simply require a little patience and thoroughness and the willingness to check through your work with care. This would have been one of the least difficult aspects of the production, I would think.
So very little has changed, Peter, and my position certainly hasn't. I have remained consistent in my arguments against any unestablished conclusions concerning the identities of the forgers when almost no reliable evidence exists to identify them and in my arguments against the silliness of all the arguments in favor of authenticity (like the goofy letter argument you cite above) which are without exception speculative, unevidenced, unreliable, sometime purely whimsical and often irrelevant bits of desire expressed as wish-fulfillment.
Hope that clears things up,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 03 January 2002 - 08:12 pm | | Guys
John seems to be taking this personally. He shouldn't be, I'm having a go at all of you. But for now.............. |
|
|
|
|
