|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 12 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 12 January 2002
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 05:18 pm |        | Hi John
I can’t positively answer your question but random evidence seem to be that any slight involvement with a newsworthy event can get exaggerated in the re-telling as the tale passes from one generation to the next. Granny recalling the East End at the time of the murders always gains that extra frisson of excitement if one adds that on the night of one of the murders she saw a cloaked and top-hatted figure vanish into the swirling, yellow fog. But whilst the elaborations are usually bogus, the core of the story is probably true. Biblical scholars often point out that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can recite the same event in different ways and from different perspectives, but the core element (usually the miracle) remains in each. If the principle holds true with Billy Graham then if his story is not a complete fabrication invented to support Anne’s lie, then the core probably has some foundation in fact. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 07 January 2002 - 06:24 pm | | John
Hello and I am really sorry about this but...... I can't let this lie - not yet anyway.
Your interpretation of Feldman is way off beam and grossly unfair.
So Paul is guilty of wish fulfillment is he?
But what was that you said a few posts ago:
How many families that have a long enough history in Liverpool would, over the years, have passed on or developed some family story or another that linked some relative to the Maybrick trial or to someone associated with the case in general? Would this have been likely or at least possible regardless of what family "discovered" the diary, if their presence in the area went back far enough? Or would it have been relatively rare?
You then go on to qualify this with:
I honestly don't know, so I'm asking.
And don't you see, John? You are doing precisely what you accuse Feldman of!
As I was reading Feldy's book for the 37th time last night, I came across an interesting paragraph (yes, there are a few) that illustrates my point that Paul was apt to be self deprecating, open to fairness and, like yourself, he was looking for the truth. Here it is:
Florence had called herself Mrs Graham, the same maiden name as that of Mike's wife, Anne Barrett. What was the connection? If Anne was connected to this diary then surely she was a Maybrick and had to be connected to the Whittlesey family.......But surely Anne must be a Maybrick, descended from one of the five illegitimate children identified by MacDougall in 1889.
As far as I am concerned Paul is guilty only of writing a book in his own style, possibly the only way he knew how. He thought out loud, he put his thoughts down on paper - he laid himself open to attack by revealing his innermost thoughts on the subject. Paul stands accused of not waiting until he knew the absolute truth before writing his book.
But then what would the world of Ripperology be! There would be no books!
And just to prove my point that Paul didn't mind proving himself wrong, witness:
P.168. "....I was feeling confused and despondent because inside I knew that Anne was the person she said she was. Despondent because I had not uncovered a government protection scheme, despondent because Anne Barrett was Anne Graham........As I drove home from Liverpool my mind was racing. OK Feldman what is the answer? You wanted there to be a deep mystery behind the identities of Anne and Mike. There isn't one."
Now John, are you honestly going to crucify a man for wearing his heart on his sleeve?
But I agree with you, it is time we returned to the debate real. And as the interesting exchange between Caz and Paul Begg shows, there is a connection between Maybrick and the diary, watch:
James Maybrick was married to Florie. Florie's maid went to her trial with Billy Graham's grandmother. Billy Graham is Anne's father. Anne 'gave' the diary to Mike.
There it is.
A connection.
Wow!
And I must offer heartfelt congratulations to Paul Begg for coming up with a reading of Anne asking Mike "Did you nick it?" that finally makes sense. Of course it only makes sense if you take it in context and put the right inflections on the right words. As Paul Feldman would say, it has to be the answer.
I can actually imagine Anne sitting there thinking Mike was going overboard with his theories, so to knock on the head the thought that Mike may have 'stolen' the diary, she decided to ask him outright in front of witnesses. And it works. And we owe thanks to Caroline and Paul Begg.
The more I think it over, the more I become convinced that Mike knows nothing. All Mike has are his theories and his suspicions.
Just one more thing. Does anyone know when Mike found out about Anne's confession to PHF? Can you imagine that? If Mike heard about it second or third hand he would have every right to be furious - and a lot of his subsequent behaviour would make sense.
But I am wishing and dreaming.
OK, just one more "one more thing". And it's a message to John Omlor:
John, would you prefer it if Feldman had called his book "The penultimate chapter. (I'm leaving a space at the end in case something else turns up)"?
Sometimes the only chance a book gets to sell itself to us is by it's cover - and the biggest part of that has to be the title. It has to be eye catching - and that's all anybody should be accused of, attempting to write something eye catching.
But as Martin Fry once sang:
If you judge a book by the cover..........
Perhaps he should have sang:
If you choose a book by the cover........
Ahh happy days.
Regards
Peter.
Carps. I'm still pinching myself. What chance you getting 2 tickets for when our two sides meet up later in the season? With you being a Yorkshireman, I know the first round will be down to me..................... |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 10:01 am | | Hi Peter,
Thank you. I was hoping you'd notice my short post about Anne's story in light of our recent discussion concerning Paul's irresponsible scholarship and rhetoric. It was written with that in mind.
If you read my post you'll notice, as you properly pointed out and cited, that I was honestly asking everyone here about something I did not know (the likelihood of most Liverpool families having a Maybrick story somewhere in their past). Thus, I phrased the post accordingly. I had no desire for an outcome, I was in no way suggesting a likely answer, I did not imply an answer, and I certainly did not assert anything.
Then you say:
"You are doing precisely what you accuse Feldman of!"
You've really not been reading my posts, have you? I am accusing Paul of doing quite the opposite. I am accusing him of irresponsibly phrasing his speculation and his unestablished conclusions and his vague ideas as rhetorical certainties and established facts in a way that reflects either sloppy thinking and careless writing or that is deliberately misleading. Paul's writing is the direct opposite of mine in my post. Thus all his "musts" (which are not shorthand but sleight-of-hand and which should make any self-respecting scholar cringe) and his "impossibles" which are themselves utterly irresponsible. Paul's book, Peter, is simply very badly written and finally offers not a single piece of evidence that links the real Maybrick to this book, despite the fact that page after page uses the misleading language of false conclusions and absolute certainty to disguise faulty research, invalid logic, and utterly unestablished and unevidenced conclusions. That is what I am criticizing Paul for doing.
And for every passage you cite where Paul falls back on rhetorical questions and what you think is self-deprecation (and I see none in the passage you cite about Anne being a Maybrick, only another out of place "must"), I can cite hundreds of paragraphs which Paul writes in an irresponsible manner.
Consider the fact that Paul not only writes the following sentence, he actually has the nerve to italicize the word had, as if he had established this fact beyond all doubt.
"Tony Devereaux had given Mike the diary."
No question there, Peter. No doubt. Nothing but a false conclusion written deceitfully as an established truth. And there's at least one on almost every page. That's irresponsible scholarship, Peter.
By the way, on page 299, Paul actually suggests the Ripper/diarist wrote the November 13th letter that begins "I am now in the Queen's Park estate in the Third Avenue" as well. So that's another letter we can add to our list, in yet another hand. This is one prolific murderer, I want to tell you.
And we don't even want to get into Paul's completely amateurish and irresponsible reading of the diary as suggesting that the Ripper also wrote the "Eight Little Whores" poem, which now seems to be a known hoax. "The author of the diary must seriously be considered as the author of the McCormick poem." (Man, the guy loves that word "must.") This is simply not true. There is no reason to consider the author of one to be the author of the other. None whatsoever. The author of the diary could easily have read the McCormick poem, or not. But there is certainly no reason to consider that the same person must have written both and Paul does not provide us with any reason despite his claim. Paul has less skills as a literary interpreter than he does as an investigator, and that's saying something. His ridiculous conclusion here reveals still more wish-fulfillment (none of which appeared in my post above, Peter).
Anyway, Peter, there is one thing you write above that I'm afraid is too true:
"As far as I am concerned Paul is guilty only of writing a book in his own style, possibly the only way he knew how."
Yup. This seems to be the embarrassing truth. It's a shame, really, that he didn't know how to write responsibly and carefully and to establish his conclusions validly and to qualify them properly as professional researchers and historians and scholars should.
But then you say:
"Paul stands accused of not waiting until he knew the absolute truth before writing his book."
NO! Please read me carefully. Paul stands accused of writing a book that claims to know the absolute truth when it doesn't. Of course he should have written his book. Of course he should have conducted his research and published his findings -- but he should have published them accurately and in a careful and responsible manner and with a recognition of just what he knew and didn't know and what the evidence fairly allowed him to claim and what it did not. He did not do this. Instead, he wrote a professional wrestling saga of a book, filled with phony melodrama, invalid conclusions, staged arguments, falsely constructed absolute certainties and irresponsible scholarship.
Then, you turn back to the debate, and offer a howler yourself"
"there is a connection between Maybrick and the diary, watch"
And I watch, hoping, expecting (not really), wondering... And you say:
"James Maybrick was married to Florie. Florie's maid went to her trial with Billy Graham's grandmother. Billy Graham is Anne's father. Anne 'gave' the diary to Mike.
"There it is.
"A connection."
Honestly, Peter. This is not serious, right? It's just a staged provocation. You're just joshing me. It is, of course, precisely the Anne Graham story that we are investigating. It's precisely the Graham story that needs to be verified, so it can't yet be a link between anything and anything. This is the question, Peter, not the answer. What you have written here as facts, "a la Feldman," (the connection between granny and Alice and that Anne gave the diary to Mike) are precisely the things we don't yet know. Consequently, the link you are searching for remains completely unestablished. Just writing them down does not make them true.
I want to repeat that, since it is a logical principle that neither you nor Feldman seem to have quite grasped.
Just writing something down does not make it true.
A truth has to be established. Logically. Validly. Through careful collection and analysis of material evidence. Through independently corroborated testimony. Somehow. And the sad and simple fact is that there is still no link between the real James Maybrick and this book.
Finally, as to Feldman's pretentious and ridiculous title -- I would have preferred that he called his project what it was, an investigation or an analysis or a scenario or a study of the diary. But "The Final Chapter," as a title, is not just stupid because it appeals to the lowest common denominator of his readership and not just misleading because it implies solutions that do not ever appear -- it's also telling, because it turns out to be indicative of how the whole book was written -- irresponsibly, carelessly, and with a misleading rhetoric of absolute certainty that too often reveals only the desires of the author and nothing whatsoever about the state of the evidence.
I'm reading another book on the Ripper case now, Peter. It's by a guy named L. Perry Curtis. It's about the Ripper case and the London press. It's written, for the most part, with a sense of historical responsibility and fairness and accuracy and it has well-conducted research and cautiously established conclusions carefully and self-consciously expressed. You should read it. It stands in stark contrast to Feldman's shallowness and melodrama and misleading conclusions. I think the striking difference would be apparent to you very quickly.
Now I must head off to my real job.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 10:28 am | | Hi Peter,
I think Mike found out about Anne's 'confession' only when he read Shirley's paperback, which was published in early October 1994. If so, one can only imagine his feelings on reading it all third and fourth hand in a book for public consumption. And within days he reported to Shirley that he had retrieved his copy of the Sphere volume from Jenny's and was taking it to his solicitor.
Hi Paul,
No need to apologise. And I should have remembered the details of that post I typed for Keith! One of the most important things in my view is that Mike was apparently oblivious to what volume 2 contained when he was taking the set to James. But something must have happened between then and 12th October to make him twig and retrieve it. His library discovery, however unlikely it may sound, would have done it.
Hi John,
I agree with Paul about basic stories getting more elaborate over the years, but generally having their origins based on something real. But I'm not sure that was the point of your question. You seemed to be asking about the likelihood that anyone, whose family had lived in one place for many a long year, might reasonably have known of a relative with some sort of connection with a famous or infamous event that happened locally, and therefore wondering how high or low were the chances of the Maybrick Diary finding its way into such a family (if Billy's Formby/Yapp story has its basis in truth) anyway.
Well, I can only go by personal experience in or around London, which I realise is far removed from Liverpool in terms of population and community. But I would imagine it would be fairly rare to find a tangible family connection to any given case by selecting an individual at random from the area whose family had lived there while it was all going on. Obviously many people would be able to come up with some much vaguer connection about a friend of a friend maybe, or a relative having seen something or met someone linked to a well-known incident. I once rode in the cab of the son or grandson of Claud Paine, a police officer whose testimony was at odds with that of other officers in the infamous Craig and Bentley case (and I believe it was received and treated in a similar way to Carrie Maxwell's). But although this is the type of personal anecdote that someone could, over time, elaborate on, it is far more commonplace and insignificant than Anne's. For her to be able to boast a step-great granny who accompanied such a crucial witness as Alice Yapp to Florie's murder trial, and be given by pure chance a recently forged diary of Florie's alleged murder victim - I don't think so somehow. What a Godsend it would have been to be able to elaborate by saying that Billy was actually bequeathed the diary by the very relative - his illiterate step-granny - who was said to have been Yapp's travelling companion and confidante!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Hi, John:
I wish to address your question about whether most Liverpool families would have a Maybrick connection in their past. No! Liverpool is and was a big city, of some 700,000 people or so, so only a small number of those citizens could possibly have had a genuine Maybrick connection, i.e., to have interacted with the Maybricks themselves or anyone in their household.
Most families who were in Liverpool in 1889 of course would have known about the Maybrick Case,, which was sensational news locally, nationally, and internationally, with Florie Maybrick being an American from Alabama. The great majority of Liverpudlians would have known about the Maybricks solely from the newspapers or local gossip or from attending the trial, and they would not have had any first-hand knowledge or interaction with the participants in the drama. I should think then that if the Grahams are claiming to have had communication with Alice Yapp, the nurse from the Maybrick househould, if that is truthfully what occurred, it places them in a category apart from most people living in Liverpool at the time.
I hope this answers your question, John.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Hi John
‘ And we don't even want to get into Paul's completely amateurish and irresponsible reading of the diary as suggesting that the Ripper also wrote the "Eight Little Whores" poem, which now seems to be a known hoax.’
Erm, we don’t in fact know whether ‘Eight Little Whores’ is a known hoax or not do we? I mean, Melvin Harris got some sort of story off Donald McCormick which Melvin thought was an admission to either authorship of the rhyme or to knowing who did author the rhyme. But McCormick twice denied that he was the author and Melvin thought the author was Ian Fleming, but the whole thing is so messy with nod and wink secretiveness that we don’t really know what was said or what McCormick may have thought he was saying or was saying or what. So where the rhyme came from, be it hymns ancient or modern, we don’t know.
And in defence of Paul, who is taking a bit of a hammering here, his faults were as many and as varied as you describe, but his book was not purporting to be an academic treatise or even a historical narrative. Rather it was the personal story of one man’s search to establish what he believed to be the truth. It is Paul’s personal story, explaining the roads he took and the reasoning he had for taking them. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. But it is his story of the road he travelled to reach the conclusion he reached. This does not absolve Paul or his book from criticism, but I think we shouldn’t lose perspective of what his book set out to do. You know, it’s like someone writing of their descent into madness. We wouldn’t expect to find scholarly logic there either.
And I'm glad you're enjoying Perry's book. It's one of the most interesting Ripper books I have read in years. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 02:23 pm | | There you go John, I'm glad Paul Begg has managed to put that to bed. As usual he has managed to say in just a few lines what I have been trying to convince you of in several posts.
And Caroline, a nod of the head to you for making me smile as the first person I've heard in ages using the word "twig" in that context.
John, I don't suppose you are looking for allies in your quest for Liverpudlians who may have had a connection with the Maybricks - but there is a rather fanciful theory of mine that may back you up a little.
My theory is that everybody on this planet is connected to everyone else by a chain of not more than six people. I've had this theory for years, since school. A few years ago somebody else independently came up with the same theory, but that doesn't alter things, it's still mine.
Let me ask you - have you ever met President George W. Bush? For the purposes of my discussion I hope the answer is no! But what if the chain worked like this:
John Omlor - knows Peter Wood - who has met Gary Numan - who has met Mother Teresa - who has met world leaders - who have met George W. Bush.
Try it. It's actually quite fun. And once you know somebody it increases your chances of knowing other people manyfold. Take Caroline's story for instance, you now have a, albeit tenuous, link to the main characters in the "Let him have it" story. So it's tenuous, but it's a link.
And that is why I have some sympathy for your question, because no matter how many people Chris George says were living in Liverpool at the time, there will be somebody who knew somebody who knew somebody else who perhaps emptied the Maybricks' dustbins and suffered from that famous scouse disease of being prone to exaggeration. Actually that is unfair to scousers. We are all prone to it.
If you want further 'proof' of my theory, just take a look at all the addresses tagged onto the end of most e mails which do the rounds of office blocks.
So I have sympathy for your question, but in this instance I believe the connection is not so tenuous as it would need to be for your purposes.
That is just my belief of course.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 02:41 pm | | Different post - different line of thinking.
Today we will stick to just one point. There has been much made of Mike's "confession" to Harold Brough, but why has no one made any mention in here of the statement made by Mike Barret's solicitor, Richard Bark-Jones?
Mike's "confession" appeared in print on Saturday 25 June 1994. Now read this extract from P.178 "The Final Chapter":
On Thursday, 30 June 1994, Richard Bark-Jones made a statement to Harold Brough. This was Mike Barrett's solicitor telling the world that the diary had origins of which he was aware......
"Last night the following statement was issued by...Richard Bark-Jones: 'With regard to the statement (confession) made by Michael Barrett that he himself had written the diary of Jack the Ripper, I am in a position to say that my client was not in full control of his faculties when he made that statement which was totally incorrect and without foundation".
So, come on John (and everyone else), lets have some discussion on that point. Just for the record my reading of it is pretty much the same as Feldmans. Mike Barrett didn't ask his solicitor to make the statement, so Bark-Jones had to be getting his information from somewhere. Any ideas?
Gotta go, Eastenders is on.
Peter.
P.S. If Carps is reading by any chance, what price O'Leary for Old Trafford next season? The way he squared up to Sam the Man made him look like Roy Keane's big brother! A perfect pairing. He's got to come to Old Trafford. He must come to Old Trafford. He has to.............. (ad lib to fade a la Feldman).................. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 08 January 2002 - 04:31 pm | | Hi Paul,
Yes, Mr. Feldman was no doubt not writing an academic treatise. Rather, you say he was writing "the personal story of one man’s search to establish what he believed to be the truth."
Unfortunately, the book is not actually written that way. It's written as an act of unveiling of the truth. It's written not only in the language of search and discovery (personal or otherwise) and belief, but in the language of fact, evidence, logic and conclusion. The problem is, the facts, evidence, logic and conclusions are all irresponsibly couched in misleading rhetoric and utterly unestablished despite their claims to legitimation. If Paul had just written an account of his own personal journey and investigation and written it as such, I would have no problem with his speculations and ideas, as far-reaching and unlikely as they may be. But he didn't. The book reads, page after page, as if it were establishing logical conclusions and it reads page after page with the language of "musts" and "had to's" and "impossibles" despite what you say its original intention was. And for this Paul Feldman should be held responsible as a writer and as a researcher and as an investigator.
Hi Peter,
I'm not actually on any quest. I just wondered to what extent the Maybrick thing had infected the historical pop-culture of Liverpool and the narratives of the families who date their presence there back that far. Actually, I was, from the start, inclined to believe what Chris George has just said -- that even among that group it would still be relatively uncommon to find a family with just this sort of story. That should probably be kept in mind as we analyze it for its possible truth.
The game of association you mention is commonly played over here with the actor Kevin Bacon. It stems from an old theory that is called "six degrees of separation," that contends that all people on the planet can be linked within six steps of one another if you count everyone you've met or encountered in your life. But it, of course, is not validly employed in trying to establish any serious historical link between the real James Maybrick and this diary. For that you'd need evidence. And, surprise of surprises, you still have none.
And there's not much point in prodding me to admit that Mike's "confessions" are utterly unreliable and likely to be rubbish at least in the large part. I've said that all along.
So I'm afraid I have nothing to argue with on that point. Whether Bark-Jones was making a political move in the name of damage control for his client or whether he was telling the truth as he saw it, in either case it doesn't surprise me. There still seems to be little or no reason to believe anything in any of Mike's confessions.
On that, Peter, I think we agree.
All the best,
--John
PS: Paul, Yes. My point about the ELW poem was not that it had to be a hoax (we certainly don't know for sure) but that Paul F.'s reading of it as being inscribed into the diary is amateurish and utterly unestablished. And yet he is, in typical fashion, bold enough to claim that "The author of the diary must seriously be considered as the author of the McCormick poem." It is a sentence like this, using this sort of language despite the fact that he has nowhere offered even a hint of any evidence that would allow him to conclude it, to which I take offense. A modern author of the diary could have very easily read the poem in any one of a number of places, even if we grant Paul's dream that the diary is referring to the poem (which he never bothers to establish in his book, by the way). So Paul F. bases his argument on two completely unestablished premises -- the diary refers directly to the poem (this is not clear) and the author of the diary also wrote the poem (there is no reason whatsoever to think this). That's simply bad thinking and bad writing, whether the poem is a hoax or not. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:25 am | | Peter/John/Chris,
the six degrees of separation idea seems to favour the notion that more rather than fewer people in Liverpool would have felt (certainly two generations down the line) they had some connection with the Maybrick case. Anyone who has studied the way stories/tales/images/'memes' are transferred finds that appropriation is common.
Thus, someone tells a story about what happened to their friends' mother (they accompanied Alice Yapp to the trial as an instance), or even they make a statement ('that Mrs Maybrick was no better than she ought to be...') and when challenged to back it up, defensively says 'well a friend of my mother knows Alice Yapp'. All of this might or might not be true. The next person along then appropriates that story, sometimes altering certain details. This is how urban myths work. Look for instance at how the 'an Arab man who I'd helped told me not to go into London/Washington/Tokyo/Leeds on Saturday because it's the next target of the terrorists' tale sped round the globe. Three people told me it in all seriousness...
So I think Chris is wrong on this. We can't prove it either way, of course, but I would suspect that a fair proportion of Liverpool-folk within one or two generations could claim some knowledge of the Maybrick case, and some connection to it.
As a Ripper-related aside, I became interested in the case by working backwards from some research and work I was doing on east end gangland of the WW1-WW2 period--how the individual gangs were subsumed into the Sabini organisation during this period. Many of the interviews I did were with surviving relatives, and led inevitably back pre-WW1, into the history of the Hoxton Titanics and other High-Rip gangs, as well as individual operators such as the Mullins family. The number of these who claimed personal connections with the Ripper case was astounding to say the least. The belief in all of these connections was, three generations down the line, firmly and absolutely held.
As a secondary point, is there any textual reference to anyone accompanying Nurse Yapp in the papers of the time? As she was one of the most talked about characters in the trial, I would have thought some note would have been made had she had a regular friend.
Vaughan.
PS: Incidentally Peter, a more interesting variant of 'six degrees' focuses on sexual activity...how many steps to say you've slept with someone? Or at least snogged someone? I can do Stalin, Hitler and Churchill each in two... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 08:15 am | | Hi Vaughan,
Your suspicion may be right that 'a fair proportion of Liverpool-folk within one or two generations could claim some knowledge of the Maybrick case, and some connection to it'.
And it would be interesting to know if any references were made in the press to companions of witnesses at the trial, although I should be most surprised if this aspect hasn't already been checked in attempts to find support for Anne's story, either by Anne herself or by one or more of the researchers. It was found that Formby and Yapp lived close enough to allow for the possibility that they knew one another. Presumably, if the story was invented, or even displaced, from a friend of a friend of Formby's having known Yapp at the time, it could have turned out to be an unlikely or even impossible alliance, depending on what the researchers found.
I have to say that if there is any truth in the tale that Formby even knew Yapp to talk to it becomes just too much of a leap to suggest Anne knew nothing about the diary's origins when Mike brought it into their home for the first time.
And that would leave us no alternative but to consider that the tale was used as a basis for the forgery and either Anne knew it was a fake when she arranged to have it dumped on an unsuspecting Mike (and she took the Crashaw lines from his Sphere volume), or her 'in the family' story is true (and the lines found their way into the diary from another source - mad as it sounds).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 10:27 am | | My post of 14 December 2001 was deleted. I am now reinstating it, without amendments, apart from some literals.
Taking up two aspects of the recent diary debate:
1. Sphere History of Literature Volume 2
The Barretts separated in January 1994. Mike’s false confession, which made no reference to either the Crashaw quote or the Sphere book, was published on 25th June 1994. As confirmed by Melvin in his post of 16 May 2001, the first reports about a Sphere book and the Crashaw quote were in September 1994. The diary was handed to Alan Gray at Mike’s solicitors on 6th December 1994.
I am not sure when Melvin first handled the book, but presumably not before 6th December 1994. In his post of 16 May 2001, Melvin describes the effects of “an excess of adhesive”, responsible for the book falling open at page 184 (the quote page) and at other pages. After at least three months in Mike’s and others’ hands (September to December), one has to be very careful before claiming that the “excess of adhesive” is the reason for the alleged bias, rather than frequent usage by an excited Mike or some other cause.
Melvin is not an expert on commercial printing and binding. Nor is Shirley, Keith or, I believe, anyone else on the boards. I would strongly recommend that the volume is shown to one of the most highly respected production directors in publishing, whose details I can supply. He was for many years production manager at Macmillan and Pan (Sphere’s rival). If Melvin or an appointee, together with an independent witness, could take the Sphere book for examination to the production director’s office near Oxford Circus, we would have a much better idea of whether an excess of glue could have caused the book to fall open at the quote.
Incidentally, quality control is stringent at publishers’ warehouses, and if a batch of books were defective, they would be withdrawn and pulped, and the printer would either compensate the publishers, or, in the case of a serious fault, reprint the edition. However, Mike’s copy could conceivably have been a single ‘rogue’ copy.
2. Chloroacetamide
Paul Begg says he remembers that the figure for the quantity of Chloroacetamide found by Analysis for Industry was “related to the smallest amount AFI’s equipment could detect, not the amount it did detect”.
My reading of their results is very different. AFI’s report of 7th May 1996 to Shirley Harrison says: “six inkspots stated to be taken from the manuscript were analysed for presence in the ink of monochloroacetamide – which was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million. That sounds like a “trace” to me.
According to Dr Voller, the company’s chief chemist, Chloroacetamide accounts for 0.26% of Diamine ink, which by my non-expert reckoning is 2,600 parts per million. If I am correct, that figure is 400 times greater than the amount in the diary ink, determined by Analysis for Industry. And let us not forget that Leeds University concluded there was no Chloroacetamide in the diary ink. And, even if it is present in some measure, as Peter Wood has reminded us, Chloroacetamide is not a 20th Century invention.
So how, even accepting AFI’s findings, can anyone say the diary is written with Diamine ink. In fact, who actually does now believe it is?
Robert Smith |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 12:10 pm | | Hi, Robert:
Thanks for posting your message again, Robert. We should clarify that your post of December 14 was deleted in the general loss of data from the boards on December 28 wherein we lost posts from October through December, not because your message was deliberately deleted.
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:15 pm | | Vaughan
Some very interesting points and thanks for making them. They don't help me very much though, because although I raised the question of 'Six degrees of separation', it is not something that I feel is relevant in this case. But thanks anyway and I must say that your comments on interviewing people who claimed connections to the ripper case was interesting and, I suppose, to be expected.
Robert
There only appears to be R.J. Palmer who argues that the ink is diamine these days, and how he continues to do that with a straight face is beyond me. In light of what Alec Voller said about the composition of the diary being "some years in the past" and diamine being the only ink of it's kind for many a long year perhaps we can conclusively knock on the head all those claims that the diary was written with information from books which were only available after 1970/1980/1990 etc etc. If the ink is not diamine (and we know it isn't) and there hasn't been another one of it's kind made 'for many a year', then the diary is an old document. End of story. End of Sphere guide.
John O.
I finally got the reply from Shirley confirming what was written in her book. In light of what she says perhaps you would like to comment on the probability of Bill being wrong? Anyway here it is:
"Hello Peter...its so good to know it is all still going on.....yes Keith
Skinner has confirmed too that when he showed Bill Waddell the Galashiels
letter alongside the authenticated writing of Maybrick Bill said "one and
the same" and he is not a man easily impressed.
And what exactly would you like to say to that? Bill Waddell, as far as I am concerned, is saying that Maybrick wrote the Galashiels letter. And I am bound to point out to anyone unacquainted with the letters and Maybrick's handwriting that they are not as disparate as you would have us believe. I held the diary up against the Galashiels letter, and without going into areas such as 'letter formation' etc, I could quite believet that they were written by the same person.
And Shirley also had a message for you John and here that is also:
"Also David Canter is presenting a series on Mapping Murder this year,,,,and is using the diary (he believes Maybrick's profile fits that of the Ripper...but I know no more yet......I wish John Omlor could get some research going on Maybrick in Norfolk.....where are the
descendents of his brothel friend? Did he have children over there?"
As for your continued attacks on Paul Feldman's integrity and abilities - you are simply attacking him and not the diary. Paul doesn't stand alone, he has many people prepared to go shoulder to shoulder with him to support the diary.
Once again the tide seems to be turning in favour of the diary being genuine.................
Take care all
Peter.
What can I say about the football tonight? The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were on Channel Four a couple of days ago - at about half four in the morning! It was live too, I almost got up for it! I have no idea of the outcome. Meanwhile Chris's Liverpool play Southampton tonight.......and we play Southampton at the weekend. Oh, and my team - Payroll Football Club (it's a group of us where I work) are playing the Creditors section at the JJB superdome at the Trafford Centre on Monday night. I'm sure I could get you on the guest list.......... |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 04:05 pm | | Hi John, and everybody,
It's been awhile since I've been on these boards, and everyone knows I love the Maybrick saga. (where's that watch?) 
However, I've noticed, John, that you seem to have a more open view of the diary than before. Is this true, or am I reading your posts incorrectly?
I'm sorry I haven't had enough time to go back and read ever post, but I'd appreciate it if someone could be bring me up to speed.
Thanks,
Mark |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 04:50 pm | | Hi everyone,
Peter, one thing you wrote above disturbed me a bit. You say, concerning my review of Paul's book:
"you are simply attacking him and not the diary."
It is very important, Peter, that you understand that this is not true. It's important that everyone understand that. I have never met Paul Feldman, I don't know him, I've never had any written exchanges with him of any sort, and I would never attack him personally in any way.
I am attacking his book. I have attacked his book, largely by citing its own language and demonstrating how that language and that rhetoric of absolute certainty is deceptive and how the conclusions expressed in that language are often invalid and irresponsible, historically and logically speaking.
However, there is a great deal of difference between "attacking him" (as you put it) and attacking his work (which I believe I can clearly demonstrate deserves it). I hope that is clear.
I’m happy to attack the diary as well, of course, and have done so in the past, almost page by page. But our discussion was about Paul's book, so that's what I was attacking at that moment. By the way, I do think that "criticizing" is a more appropriate verb.
Now then, the quote you cite Shirley citing from Bill is, unfortunately, only four words long. There's no context, no further explanation offered and no chance to ask Bill exactly what he has ultimately concluded or where he stands now on the idea that Maybrick had to have written both or either of these documents or the diary. As far as I know, Bill still does not believe the diary is in any way linked to Maybrick or to Jack the Ripper and I do not believe he has ever publicly said he believes Maybrick ever wrote any of the Ripper letters.
We should probably point out here that Bill Wadell is certainly not a handwriting expert nor is he in any way professionally qualified to pronounce two handwriting samples as identical beyond initial appearance, which is what seems to have happened here. He was a Metropolitan Police traffic officer who retired and became curator of the crime museum at Scotland Yard. He finally retired from that post (being replaced by John Ross) and now runs his own consultancy business. If you like, I will find out, Peter, if he has ever suggested or if he believes that Maybrick must have written any of the Ripper letters or if he believes in the diary (I am almost certain that the answer to the latter question is no, and I believe the same answer remains for the former).
But I must point out, Peter, that I have seen the Baltic letter that we know Maybrick wrote, and I've seen the Galahseils letter, and the writing is clearly different. The very first letter of each (the upper case D), for instance, is markedly different. One of these texts we know Maybrick wrote. The other (the one you are saying he wrote) seems to be in a different hand.
And beyond that, Peter, (sigh) I've seen the diary. And it is in a completely and utterly different hand than either of these two texts.
NOTE: Here is where you chime in reminding me once again that all this handwriting comparison stuff is pointless because we all have many handwritings and because, as Don Rumbelow has said, you can't trust handwriting analysis. And I point out to you that if you really believe that, then citing Bill Wadell about anything to do with handwriting comparisons is useless since you yourself have pointed out that handwriting analysis and comparisons can't be trusted. And once again, you have thoroughly undercut your own position. Either you trust handwriting comparisons and use the Wadell citation or you don't and use the Rumbelow citation, but you can't have it both ways Peter. And I’m afraid you are pretty much stuck with not trusting handwriting comparisons, because the writing in the diary looks nothing like Maybrick's and no expert has said or will say it's his. So you really shouldn't be talking at all about whose handwriting looks like whose in any case. It's a losing proposition for you once anyone bothers to look at the diary, since you are then forced to offer the lame "but we all have many styles and you can't tell anything about identity from the handwriting" argument, which invalidates your "Maybrick must have written these letters based on the handwriting" argument.
Rational thought is a bitch.
(Or, God forbid, you have to go to the “Maybrick must have had MPD” card, violently forcing and twisting recorded history into your own desires.)
No, there is no tide, Peter. Because there is still no evidence. Nothing exists that links this book in any way to the real James Maybrick or to Jack the Ripper or even to the proper century.
Hi Mark,
My attitude on the diary hasn't really changed. I still don't think we know who wrote it or where or precisely when or why. I don't think there's very much reliable material evidence that would allow us to claim knowledge in any rational way concerning any of these questions. On the other hand, I still don't think there is any reason whatsoever to think this diary is authentic or even from the 19th century. Not a single piece of evidence exists that would even suggest that this book is in any way linked to the real James Maybrick or to these crimes. No one has ever found, discovered, produced or offered any evidence of any sort that is reliable or substantiated that would link this book to anyone other than the people who brought it forward. I do however, believe people other than Mike and/or Anne played some role in the production of this book and since there were not profits or fame for anyone else, I have no idea why they did so. Nor, apparently, does anyone else. No one who has a theory about another penman or about someone helping Mike can explain why anyone would do so without standing to make money or get attention, and no one has been able to offer any evidence that supports the idea that Mike and/or Anne did this and did it all alone.
So, all in all, I believe that the state of knowledge, surrounding the specific scenes of this book's research, composition and production, is pretty pathetic. There is a whole lot more we don't know than there is that we do, on all sides. And no one around here really has anything like a case, so far.
That's where I still think we are. And that's, I think, why we're all still here.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 07:27 pm | | Hi John,
Good to see you haven't let up on your position. (It's always fun to debate with you about Maybrick.)
You said something in a recent post about Anne's Father being connected to Florence Maybrick's trial (I think it was your post; I can't find it in the archives). Do you think that helps or hurts ever finding the truth about the Diary?
To me it just seems like the deeper we dig the more rocks we find.
Mark |
Author: Michael Hopper
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 10:41 pm | | I see part of this thread has returned to the ink on our favourite manuscript.
Peter Wood states that the ink cannot be a Diamine ink and then follows that with the statement that that means that the ink must be Victorian.
I agree that there is no evidence to show that the ink could be a Diamine ink provided we agree that Diamine ink contains chloroacetamide at the level quoted by Dr Voller. I cannot go along with the conclusion that this implies that the ink is thus necessarily more than 100 years old. Today I searched the internet for British vendors of black iron manuscript, calligraphy or marking inks. I found one on-line UK store that allows you to choose from at least six black iron writing inks. No Diamine ink was listed at that location so there must be at least seven different such inks on the UK market today.
This is not at all surprising as black iron tannin ink and the recipes for making it have been documented in English books for almost 500 years but recipes extend back to at least Roman times. [Some of the Dead Sea scrolls were written with such an ink].
It really is a stretch to go from stating that "the ink is not Diamine" to concluding that the ink was definitely put on the pages of the "confession" in 1889. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 06:48 am | | Dear Shirley:
I gather from something mentioned on the boards that you're interested in what became of JM's friend (presumably Nicholas M. Bateson.) from Norfolk VA.
By 1900, he was living at 200 Bute St. Norfolk, in business as a Cotton Exporter. He was born April 1856 in England, had emigrated in 1876 and was married about 1881 to Mary, a lady from Missouri.
They had 5 children, 4 of whom were alive in 1900: Alice aged 17, Isabelle aged 15, Hilda aged 13 and Olga aged 3..
You apparently asked whether JM might have had any children out there. I've previously mentioned Fannie Maybrick, aged 21 born Virginia, resides Norfolk City, servant to William Burgess. and found in the 1910 Virginia Federal census. In 1900 there is listed a Thomas Maybrick born April 1871 in Virginia whose father was born Maryland and mother born Virginia. He was a waiter on a boat moored at Norfolk.
JM of course was in Liverpool in April 1871 but had he been in Virginia 9 months earlier? Is it possible that Thomas is one of the children from Sarah Robertson?
I'm also putting this message on the boards for those few interested. |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:49 pm | | Is there anyway to truly trace Maybrick's line?
I understand that he was somewhat of a womanizer, but how can we know for sure who he sired or not? Even today many people are told that they have children they never knew about-but are not theirs. I sure that there's a possiblilty that Maybrick, the wealthy cotton merchant, could have had affairs with women who might want to cash in on his money by saying that they child (fron someone else) was his.
I don't know if I'm way off the path here about the children or not, but the major question I have would:
Is knowing his bloodline anything that would help with the truth of the diary, or is it just a "want to know" type of issue?
Sorry for interjecting,
Mark |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Mark - stop apologising. I think it's fair to say that anything we uncover about Maybrick can only be helpful in uncovering the truth about the diary one way or the other.
Peter - fascinated to read what you said there. As Forrest Gump would say "That's all I have to say about that"!
John - you're right to say that we don't have a definite answer from Bill Waddell regarding his opinion on Maybrick and the diary. But you are wrong to say that the four words Shirley quotes Bill as saying to Keith Skinner are "out of context". They are entirely "in" the context of Keith showing Bill two sets of handwriting, one proven to be Maybrick's and one written by someone with more than an interest in the Whitechapel Murders. You can't get anymore Black and White than "One and the same".
At the very least John, you have to admit that we now have a sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches a letter allegedly written by "the ripper".
And your nice little scenario with me citing Waddell and Rumbelow at the same time is cute, even laughable. It is true to say that I respect the opinion of both men, but what you are forgetting John is the context in which Don Rumbelow was quoted as saying we can place little reliance on handwriting evidence. It was when he was discussing the case of the Dusseldorf Ripper, Peter Kurten and the fact that P.K. wrote several letters which were published in the press and which his wife couldn't identify as being by her husband.
Apparently Peter Kurten got a big kick out of that. And the important thing to note there John, is that one person is capable of producing several different styles of writing.
That is the point that Don Rumbelow was making, not that we should discount all handwriting evidence, which would of course be ludicrous. But, even now, there are those that argue that handwriting analysis is more of an art than a science.
And none of this really matters if you accept that to look at two sets of handwriting and accept that they are similar (or not) does not require one to be a handwriting analyst capable of reading the amount of information that someone like Sue Iremonger or Hannah Koren can gleam.
And yes John, the two capital D's are different, but one of them looks contrived to be different, whereas the other looks natural and flowing. It is to be expected that there will be both differences and similarities.
And finally, to your thinly veiled attack on Feldman. If you had said something along the lines of "I loved the work Feldman did on the Krays, but thought his book was rubbish", now that would be 'criticism'. But to constantly disparage his book is not criticism, it is an attack, attack, attack. You see, the only thing you know Feldman for is his book - and you constantly knock it. But, John, I would like to go on record as saying that I do believe you are the kind of guy who would sit down and have a beer with Feldman if you ever met him - I think you are fair and equitable in that respect. And I do believe that you genuinely don't believe you are attacking Feldman as a person, but imagine if you exhibited several paintings at an art gallery and I went along the row of them one by one saying: "....rubbish....contrived.....childish.... amateurish....", at what point would you take it personally?
And heaven forbid that you should think that I am having a go at you. Let me drop the facade that I usually wear in here (for just one moment) to go on record as saying that I enjoy debating with you, I enjoy reading your posts, your logic infuriates me - but ultimately it makes sense, I think you contribute a lot to the debate and without you I don't think this strand of debate would be half as interesting (with respect to everyone else).
Right, facade back up now, Eastenders on the telly again, wife due back from nightschool soon and I have to go cook some chicken in creamy white wine and mushroom sauce, a nice little chianti and some cheesecake. And it's only Thursday!
Regards
Peter
P.s. Where is Christopher George? What price Gordon Strachan for manager of the season? That save the Southampton goalie made from Anelka was sensational, you shouldn't be too downhearted - but I must admit to being pleasantly surprised at the result. I await the weekend with some trepidation as we play Southampton next. Say your prayers for me.............please?
P.P.S. Michael...sorry, I almost forgot about you there. Thanks for your comments on the ink that has been available alongside Diamine, it is exactly the sort of comment and research that we need in here. But now it needs to be followed up. It is no use just saying that the ink could be one of the others. As we now know it isn't Diamine you have an opportunity to get the other inks tested and see if it is one of those you refer to. And no, I don't expect you to pay!!!!!!!!! |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 04:15 pm | | Mark;In 1887 Florence Maybrick discovered " her husband was the father of three children born out of wedlock before his marriage,and that he sired two more children by the same woman since he and Florence had been married (Ryan-" Poisoned Life of Florence Mabrick"p28).When confronted with the accusation "he shrugged and made a half hearted promise to break off the affair".(Christie-"Etched in Arsenic"p45).After Maybrick's death a dressmaker presented a bill several months overdue for settlement.The bill was to be sent to James Maybrick Ryan p 80). Later the brothers Thomas and Michael followed up on the dressmaker's bill and "set off for a distant part of Liverpool and found a woman who readily admitted thatJames Maybrick had paid for dresses made for her, that jewels in her possession had been given to her by Jim as security for money she had loaned him, and that her five children were, in fact, the Maybrick brothers' nephews and nieces"(Ryan p.88)Needless to say that when Florence found out about his filandering she had nothing else to do with him sexually, but did keep up appearances. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 06:15 pm | | Hi Peter,
This won't take long.
First, as I said, we still don't know how Bill Wadell actually, finally, feels about any of these issues. So I am not going to consider his four word quote significant material evidence of anything just yet. I'll find out, though, Peter, if you'd like.
Second, Bill, as I've said before, is not a handwriting analyst and therefore his opinion about matches or non-matches, while interesting, are not reliable evidence of anything.
Third, you say:
"At the very least John, you have to admit that we now have a sample of Maybrick's handwriting that matches a letter allegedly written by 'the ripper'."
Nonsense. I would not admit anything of the kind until such a match is professionally established or until at least one qualified expert testifies to it. This is simply being responsible as an investigator, Peter. I would hope that's what you'd expect from all of us.
Fourth, when talking about the different handwriting in the Baltic letter and the Galashiels letter you say, reaching yet again:
"And yes John, the two capital D's are different, but one of them looks contrived to be different, whereas the other looks natural and flowing."
What the hell does "contrived to be different" mean? How could you possibly know this? Now, apparently, you can not only look at letters and see if they were written by the same guy, you can tell me when one letter is written with contrivance and when one is not? That's a damn good trick. Unfortunately, you're just making all this up, Peter, to cover up two simple and inconvenient facts. The writing in the Baltic letter, which we know is Maybrick's, does not match the writing in the Galashiels letter; and the writing in the diary does not look anything like the writing in either of those documents. Those are the simple and immediately apparent facts, Peter, even to someone seeing these documents for the first time. And you can make all the excuses you want (there are likely to be variations, we all have different handwritings all the time, Maybrick had MPD), but the fact is that the Dear Boss letter, the Galashiels letter, the diary, and all the other letters the diary suggests the author wrote are all in different hands and all in a completely different hand than Maybrick's in the Baltic letter. That's why actually talking about handwriting comparisons remains an utterly losing proposition for anyone wanting to argue in favor of the diary's authenticity. You'd be far better off hoping people pay no attention to handwriting at all.
Finally, Peter, you ask me this:
"And I do believe that you genuinely don't believe you are attacking Feldman as a person, but imagine if you exhibited several paintings at an art gallery and I went along the row of them one by one saying: "....rubbish....contrived.....childish.... amateurish....", at what point would you take it personally?"
Honestly, if I was confident you were talking about my work, at no point would I take it personally. I’ve had readers say all sorts of utterly nasty things about my work. I often work in the field of contemporary French philosophy and literary theory, where the debate gets much tougher and much more aggressive and much more cutting than anything that takes place here and where feelings among scholars and critics run very deep indeed. And I never take anything anyone writes about my work personally.
I think everything I have said about Paul's work on this subject is true, demonstrably so. That implies nothing about Paul as a human being. I have no opinion on such a matter. I also have no opinion on anything else Paul has done, as I haven't read it. My remarks were confined to the pages in his diary book. So are my opinions.
All the best,
--John
PS: To accept or not accept that two handwritings are similar is largely irrelevant, in terms of material evidence. Because to do so in no way establishes a match. We must guard against allowing such soft-core speculation take the place of analysis and qualified judgment. I can tell you that it seems clear to me that the Baltic letter and the Galashiels letter and the diary are all in obviously different hands. But that really doesn't matter. Until a responsible and qualified expert announces that any of these documents actually match each other, all the rest is just so much wishing. And none of it changes the fact that there is still not a single piece of evidence that links the real James Maybrick to this diary in any way and that there is not a single piece of evidence that places this diary even in the proper century. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 07:04 pm | | Hi All,
Since several people were kind enough to address my question about how many old Liverpool families that go back far enough in the area might have some story that would link someone in their history to something having to do with the Maybrick case, I thought I'd ask another one.
How many households in Liverpool, in 1994, do you suppose had the lines "O costly intercourse of death," from Richard Crashaw's "Mother of All Sorrows" somewhere in them?
There's really no way to guess, of course. So I'll ask it differently. There are at least 900 or so people that read these boards. Possibly more. Many are probably reading this post. So, everyone, how many of you, in 1994, had a copy of the line "O costly intercourse of death" somewhere in your house?
You don't have to have had the actual poem -- an obscure and most often unanthologized translation by Richard Crashaw of a sacred Latin hymn -- just that line, written down somewhere in something.
I certainly didn't. And I teach Literature for a living and had already finished my doctorate by then and needed many, many books for my comprehensive exams, including many poetry anthologies and collections. My significant other didn't. And she actually teaches and writes about 16th and 17th Century British Literature (including Crashaw) for a living and already had her PhD. in the subject by then as well.
But the people who brought forth the diary did. And they didn't even have a copy of the poem. Just those lines (and a couple others) from the middle of the poem. Conveniently excerpted in a prose essay on an entirely different author. And those lines happen to be the very ones that appear in the diary.
So I'm asking. All those who actually had the line "O costly intercourse of death" from the middle of Crashaw's "Mother of Sorrows" somewhere in their house in 1994, please send me e-mail. I'd like to get a sense of the number.
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 03:07 am | | Hi John
This isn’t an answer to your question, more wondering what your purpose is in asking it. It's already accepted that the quote is very obscure and that the Sphere Guide is not general –or apparently even specialist – reading. We’re pretty much all agreed that the quote had to have come from Mike’s copy of the Sphere book. The question is, did Mike extract the quote or did someone else?
We’ve seen the argument against Mike providing it – his inability to give a coherent account of the forgery scheme, not providing the quote when he confessed to Harold Brough, not producing the book when he engaged Alan Gray, and so on. And if it is assumed that Mike did not provide the quote and that no other evidence actually ties him even to knowing the ‘diary’ was forged, we must then look at who is most likely to have been in a position to take the quote from the Sphere book. Anne? Tony Devereux? Gerrard Kane?
And if none of these people fit the bill, we may have to conclude that as unbelievable as it is, Mike’s ownership of the Sphere book was a remarkable coincidence.
But one quick question, I can't recall why that quote was in the Sphere book. Why was the author illustrating when he quoted it? Whilst Crashaw is generally obscure, did those lines have a special meaning of any kind? |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 07:22 am | | Hi Paul,
I must rush off to work, so here's the quick answer. Of course, we're not quite all agreed that the Sphere Guide was the source for the quote. I'm still engaged in my discussion with Peter Wood concerning the problems in the diary's claim to authenticity. The fact that these two lines at one time appeared in two places in the same house (the Sphere Guide and the "discovered" diary) seems to me to be important in that regard.
Second, even if we are prepared to agree that Mike needn't be the only person who put it in the diary, that leaves open the question of how likely it might be that someone else had these lines in their home in, say, 1994. So I was just wondering.
In the Sphere Guide essay, I believe that Christopher Ricks was using the citation as part of a comparison in style between Crashaw and Herbert. There was nothing special about the lines themselves. They refer to the relationship between Christ and Mary in what was a sort of translation of a sacred hymn.
Now I must rush off to work.
All the best,
--John (who so far has received no e-mails from anyone who had these lines in their home in 1994, the way the Barretts did.) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 07:51 am | | Hi All,
As Paul has said, we've been through all the arguments for and against Mike having provided the quote for the diary from his own book and then giving that book away and forgetting about it (no way if that was his only contribution, and no one has yet suggested why and when he might have remembered about it later) or deciding not to use it when he first confessed.
If Anne had taken the quote and got herself involved with such a forgery, would she really have left the book hanging around the house afterwards, eventually to be found by Mike? It may not be the kind of book she would ever imagine him looking in, but why take the gamble, especially if she was aware of its tendency to fall open at the damning page?
And there is no evidence that Devereux or Kane ever visited the Barrett home, so a scenario in which either of them saw the book and took the quote without Mike or Anne knowing cannot be supported, quite apart from the fact that it would have been madness for the forger(s) to leave this evidence with their handler/placer! If either Barrett had ever been formally accused of forgery (and the possibility must have occurred to all those involved), and the book found in their home, what possible hold could the forgers have had over them to stop them squealing on the real culprits? The possession of the quote by itself, as we have seen, is not enough to show who conceived and executed the whole thing. It's not even enough to prove Mike or Anne knew the diary was a fake when it came into and left their hands.
What story did the composer/penman have ready in case their handler/placer(s) couldn't be kept quiet?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 12:06 pm | | Ink: The Missing Factor. Melvin Harris
Just been sent some of the many pages dealing with the AFI test and the chloroacetamide issue. Alas, most of the discussion is simply misguided. Why? Because there is no possible way in which the AFI results for one substance can be matched up with the rest of the diamine ink formula. Why? For two good reasons. 1/ No quantative analysis was commissioned. 2/ The extraction rates for the various compounds in the ink are not known.
Let me expand on that. The tiny samples used were judged to contain less that 10 % by weight of ink residues. The paper and its dried ink was placed in an acetone bath in an attempt to dissolve out its component parts. A cut-off time was allotted for the soaking. When the tests were made, the rates at which any any dried components parts had passed into the solvent were never logged, or even looked for, since the test was simply one for the PRESENCE of chloroacetamide. At that time, this was the only test suggested to me by Alex Voller.
In case there is still some confusion let me simplify things even more. Note that no attempt was made to gauge just how much of the iron-gall compound had dissolved out; just how much of the sighting colour had dissolved out and so on. In addition, how much of the chloroacetamide dissolved out and how much remained undissolved was not known. Since those figures are unknown, you cannot relate the chloroactemaide proportion to either the lab formula or to any of the other ink components that may have passed into the acetone. And it is that second comparison alone that counts. The Diamine laboratory formula tells us about everything that went INTO their ink. But the AFI result tells us about one component only of an unmeasured mixture extracted from that ink. Here the lab formula is no yardstick.
Why? Because we know that dried ink components dissolve at markedly different rates, both from early days and with age. For example, the iron-gall part will always dissolve at a much slower rate than the primary colour. Indeed, when Dr. Baxendale dissolved some diary ink in a 50-50 mixture of distilled water and pyridine, he observed that the primary dye coloured the solvent within seconds. His test of that dyestuff recorded the patterns made by nigrosine. But he also observed that a black residue remained undissolved. That was in 1992. But by December 1994, Leeds, using a different solvent, recorded that: "...the diary ink/paper fragments [were] not soluble in the solvent mixture." They repeated this verdict later stating: "The diary ink present on the paper fragments does not dissolve within the solvent combination."
Today, Smith/Harrison are making much of the fact that the diary ink shows no sign of extensive bronzing and is black. They fail to read and understand, though when it suited them they were quoting Voller's finding of fading and bronzing as if this proved great age. Long ago I emphasised that bronzing and irregular fading of inks is a highly erratic process that is influenced by humidity, heat, storage conditions and the PAPER involved.
This has now been fully endorsed by Voller and in the case of the test letter written by Nick Warren, he has stated: "I agree that the [Diamine] ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the diary, as regards to fading and bronzing."
Alec Voller has also stated that the diary ink is a nigrosine and iron-gall ink. And he is also certain that his firm was the only one making such an ink in the 1990's. Now since the diary text uses both Ripper and Maybrick material that was not available until 1988, two big questions rear up. If a modern fake turns up in LIVERPOOL using ink matching that made up by one small LIVERPOOL firm, is this pure coincidence? If so, what other ink can it possibly be?
Now for those who wish to ask really pertinent questions, why not find out why Smith failed to carry out the tests on blank diary paper? These were advised by Voller, who took the trouble to make up a batch of the original Diamine MS ink. Warren used it; Smith ignored it. Why? Its use on the same paper as the rest of the diary writing would have given us valuable text samples. And why has no move been made to display a facsimile of the diary in Liverpool? This suggestion is years old and was approved of by eveyone on this site when I first raised the matter here.
And did the people who have now seen the diary notice that the ink on the last page of the diary is the same as that on the first page of the diary? The writing pretends to have been first started early in 1888. The last entry pretends to have been penned on May 3rd 1889. Yet, over that year or more stretch, each page is written in an ink that shown no variations. Just what one would expect from multiple entries written over a period of days.
FOOTNOTE: Before commissioning the tests for chloroacetamide I researched the history of that substance in the Science Museum Library. Though it was first known in Victorian times, it was never possible to make it cheaply enough to be used in anything as low-priced as an iron-gall writing ink. This remained so for over a century, since its production involved a slow hand-process in small flasks; exact details are in: "Organic Syntheses" Vol. 1, 1941. It was only after WWII that a newly-developed commercial process brought the price of chloroacetamide down to a level that made it economical enough to use in ink manufacture. |
Author: Michael Hopper
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 01:40 pm | | On iron-gall inks in 1988-1990.
Peter Birchwood repeats a long text by Melvin Harris that I mostly agree with. This test quotes Alex Voller as saying that Diamine was the only one making that type of ink at the time. Why then are their at least seven different iron-gall inks on the UK market today? They are all small suppliers but I cannot believe they all sprouted after1990. Alex Voller is mistaken in his assumption.
I agree with the general point of Melvin Harris' summary. The testing of the ink has not been at all comprehensive or properly directed. The labs doing the work have done all they were asked but no more than that. This is hardly surprising as a complete study is a very expensive proposition. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 01:56 pm | | | Michael--Do they use nigrosine? I think that was the key to Voller's statement... RP |
Author: Michael Hopper
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 05:20 pm | | RJP
Whether any of them other than Diamine use nigrosine will have to be checked. Nigrosine is used to show up the ink before it darkens on exposure to air. Not all inks use such a dye. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 08:20 pm | | Oh dear. Where to start? I can already see that I am going to be kept busy tonight.
First to John. Hi John, how are you doing? How's the e mail campaign? What, no replies yet! Maybe your question shouldn't be how many people had the Crashaw quote in their houses in 1994, but how many people realised that they had the Crashaw quote in their house in 1994.
A couple of problems there too John. Has Mike's story of receiving the Sphere guides been checked out? Or are they just as suspect as the diary for provenance? And (more importantly) your question is grossly irrelevant if the diary was composed in 1888/89.
Dear dear Paul! "We’re pretty much all agreed that the quote had to have come from Mike’s copy of the Sphere book. The question is, did Mike extract the quote or did someone else? ".
No, we're not pretty much agreed on anything, as realistically speaking, just Mike or Anne had good access to the Sphere guide (if indeed it was in the Barrett household at that time and wasn't conveniently bought at a later date).
Regarding the Crashaw quote John Omlor says:
"But the people who brought forth the diary did.
Whoaa! Hang on there John! The "people" who brought forth the diary? Wasn't it just Mike that took the diary to London? You have no evidence (reliable or otherwise) to suggest that Anne was in league with Mike and that they produced the diary together so you can't go around making rash statements like that!
And on that point Anne Barrett has never wavered.
If a modern fake turns up in LIVERPOOL using ink matching that made up by one small LIVERPOOL firm, is this pure coincidence? If so, what other ink can it possibly be?
Well Peter, that's a lot of "if's"! "If" the diary is genuine do you have any logical argument why it shouldn't turn up in Liverpool, as that was where it's author lived?
And of course you can't believe, as yet, that the ink in the diary matches that in a bottle of Diamine! Your post, whilst interesting, ultimately served only to further the argument that ink analysis is an area that needs a great deal further research investing in it.
And so to Mike. "If" Mike had forged the diary, he would have pulled his two aces (diamine and Crashaw) from up his sleeve at the first possible opportunity. Trust me, that's what a scouser would do. Mike has been totally unable to prove that he forged the diary. Of the questions that Feldman put to Mike (through Harold Brough), not one answer was forthcoming.
So, quite apart from failing to mention diamine and Crashaw until much later Mike couldn't answer any of these:
How did he know that James Maybrick was indeed away from home at Christmas 1888?
How did he know that James Maybrick struck his wife Florence several times before the Grand National in 1889?
How did he know that the daughter of James Maybrick, Gladys, was consistently an ill child?
Let's face it: Mike didn't have a clue. So then you are left to scrabble around in the dirt to suggest that Kane or Devereux may have been to Mike's house and seen the Crashaw quote in the Sphere guide! Come on, talk about stretching reality!
Something just doesn't add up here; Mike didn't forge the diary, ( a lot of people appear to be moving towards that opinion) and despite Peter's lengthy post and ten years down the line, no one has been able to say that the ink is diamine. In fact we are led to believe that when the ink is placed in acetone the one component part that doesn't bleed into the acetone is.......chloroacetamide! Well, not very much of it anyway.
And remember, it really is as black and white as this: If Anne is telling the truth about the diary being in her family for years then the Crashaw quote (misquoted twice in five words) could not possibly have come from the Sphere guide.
This is a Sphere guide, by the way, which was not only available at the Liverpool library but also a local second hand booksellers. So, quite conceivably Mike could have traced the quote in the library then gone to the shop to buy his own copy of the guide - thus giving himself the power to lay claim to authenticating the diary/forging the diary, depending on which side you flip the coin.
The diary has no provenance? You mean you are not prepared to believe Anne and Billy?
The Sphere guide has provenance? You mean you are prepared to believe Mike on this point?
Talk about being selective! "Hey guys, lets not believe Anne because it is damaging to our cause, but lets choose to believe Mike because it strengthens our argument - but wait, lets only believe him when it suits us, and at other times we will just call him a spineless liar".
And I'm the one who gets accused of indulging in wish fulfillment.
How much clearer do you want it to be? Anne is saying she saw the diary in the 1960's, Billy in the 1940's. Forget about analysing ink and the bias produced by an excess of glue on a sphere book page. Forget about the Crashaw quote. Concentrate on Anne. See if you can break her. Because if the diary is a forgery then she is lying. Go on guys, that's all you need to do - strap Anne in to the lie detector and fire away!
Oh and by the way, you still haven't found that document/photograph/newspaper report/letter...etc etc that proves James/Florie/Bobo/Gladys/Hopper/Michael/Edwin/Yapp/Baroness von Roques/George/Lowry or any of the main players - just one of them - could not have been where the diary has them as being in 1888.
Do that and the discussion is over. Break Anne and the discussion is over.
But Anne must be made of sterner stuff than her husband because she hasn't broken yet.
Or maybe she is just telling the truth.
At least it's the weekend.
Has anyone seen Chris?
Regards
Peter.
P.s. No p.s. tonight. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 06:22 am | | Hi Peter (Wood)
In saying that ‘we are pretty much all agreed…’ I was not saying that we are all agreed, only that we are ‘pretty much’ all agreed, meaning that the majority opinion seems to be that the quote came from Mike’s copy of the Sphere book. And I said ‘pretty much all’ because I was aware that you and one or two other people believe that the ‘diary’ is either genuine or a pre-1987 forgery and therefore don't believe the quote came from Mike’s copy of the book.
And if a lot of people reply to John to say they knew the quote then we might have to revise the current opinion that the quote is obscure, but at present the opinion is that it is obscure and not something someone would be likely to just stumble across – which is the very reason why many people completely reject Mike’s claim to have stumbled across it in Liverpool library.
Having said this, my point was that if Mike did not supply the quote (to himself or to ‘Devereux and his pals’, as he claimed to Melvin Harris), then who could have supplied it? Or where did it come from? And as you go on to argue, Peter, if Anne didn’t supply it and Tony Devereux never saw Mike’s copy of the Sphere book, you would be forcing an examination of the possibility that the ‘diary’ predates Mike's acquisition of the Sphere guide in 1987.
As for being selective in accepting Mike’s claim about how and when he obtained the Sphere book, you are correct. As far as my memory serves, the first independent and hands-on confirmation we have of the book’s existence was in December 1994 when Mike handed the book over to Alan Gray in his solicitor’s office. However, I seem to recall that Mike's sister confirmed his ownership of the book and Mike’s girlfriend, Jenny, apparently confirmed that Mike leant her son the Sphere books (the Ccrashaw quote is in volume 2 of a multi-volume set) in the middle of 1994. By October 1994 Mike was himself claiming to own the book. And in December 1994, as said, Mike gave the book to Alan Gray. (We also have a claim by Melvin Harris that Mike told Alan Gray about the Sphere book by name and mentioned its significance in the first week of September 1994, but Gray’s story needs clarification because it’s said that he first heard about the a book from Mike’s solicitor – which opens up the possibility that Mike never mentioned it by name to Mr Gray until after early October when Mike did lodge the book with his solicitor.) So the evidence as we have it tends to support Mike’s story about owning the Sphere before 30th September 1994. So we are not really being selective in accepting what Mike has said and if you want to question it than you have to throw doubt on the supportive evidence.
As for Mike buying the book from a second-hand dealer, I suspect that you haven't really thought this one through. Why would Mike discover the quote in the Liverpool library, then go out and buy the Sphere books from a second-hand dealer and pretend he’d had them for years? What would have been the point? Remember, he was not at that time using the Sphere book to prove he was the forger. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:13 am | | Hi Paul
Therein lies the problem of understanding how Mike Barrett's mind works.
He claimed that someone at the library told him that the Sphere guide was also available at the second hand book store. Now, either that happened or Mike found out from some other source that the Sphere guide was available at the second hand book store.
Either way there exists the very real possibility that Mike did not own the Sphere book prior to finding the quote in the library (and with a nod of the head to John Omlor I am prepared to concede that the chances of Mike finding it in the way he says he did sound slim).
Why would Mike want to buy the Sphere guide? Of course we are only speculating here Paul, but let us assume at this stage that Mike is not involved in the forgery. Therefore he has to weigh up the thought that it could be a genuine document against the (in his mind) very real possibility that his wife Anne had foisted the forgery upon him (by this time Devereux has already told him to look towards his own family, but then again Mike is the only confirmation we have that Devereux ever did that).
So, Mike - knowing at least that he didn't forge the diary and not being sure if it is a genuine document or not - comes across the Crashaw quote in Liverpool library. At this stage it would be reasonable for him to want to own a copy of the Sphere book if he suspected it had been used in a forgery. As I remember it Anne says that upon acquiring the diary Mike read all the books he could on JTR, although I do seem to remember PHF claiming that there weren't all that many in Mike's house. The problem for Mike is that he wouldn't have been allowed to remove the library's copy of the Sphere guide and thus would have had to look elsewhere for his copy. And just round the corner there is a second hand book store that is selling the very book that he needs (or wants).
So as far as I can see, there is nothing to suggest that Mike got the Sphere guide in the way that he claimed from the publishers, that is nothing which favours this theory over and above the theory that I have outlined which involves Mike buying the Sphere guide after discovering the Crashaw quote in the library's copy because maybe he suspected that it had been used in the composition of a forgery. But as this stage Mike couldn't have been sure.
The theory of Mike going out to buy a copy of the Sphere guide fits in completely with the picture we have from Anne of Mike reading as many books as he could.
The other part of my argument, Paul, is whether or not anyone has checked out with the publishers as to whether or not they sent Mike the guides as he claimed they did, in the same way that his claim of buying the diary at an auction was knocked on the head. Has anyone even seen the other 'supposed' guides? Do we know they exist?
The sphere guide is in danger of becoming a mythical object. Apparently it exists, but nobody on Shirley, Paul and Robert's side is allowed to see it. And even if they were allowed to, it's provenance is lousy.
And still no one has grasped the concept that to challenge the diary all you have to do is break Anne's story.
And now I turn to John Omlor:
Hi John
Yes, Mike's story for how he came by the Crashaw quote is lousy, but he came by it somehow - and as I have shown you have no evidence that proves the Sphere guide was in Mike's house before the diary was taken to London and as such it can't really be counted as evidence.
The Crashaw quote becomes less of a problem if you accept that Maybrick put it in the diary and Mike only had a copy of a book containing the quote because he went out and bought one - maybe hoping to learn more about who could have forged the diary - and here I am allowing you the luxury of thinking that Mike might have considered the idea that the diary was a forgery.
Anyway, it is Saturday - and what on earth is Paul Begg doing up at 6.a.m. posting to this board?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:19 am | | Hi there Peter,
This was written before your last post appeared. But it addresses the same issues.
You suggest I revise my question:
"Maybe your question shouldn't be how many people had the Crashaw quote in their houses in 1994, but how many people realised that they had the Crashaw quote in their house in 1994."
What, are you seriously suggesting that there are a bunch of people out there that had this quote somewhere in their house and never realized it? Any evidence for this? I can't imagine it's true.
But fine, if anyone out there now knows that the quote was in their house in 1994, but they didn't realize it at the time, send me e-mail too.
The point, Peter, is that the line appears in the diary, and it appears in a book that belonged to the Barretts and it doesn't seem to have appeared in very many other people's homes or even in very many other places. And the Barrett's didn't even have the whole poem. They just happened to have a few lines which just happened to be the lines from which the five words are taken. So if anyone else had those five words in their house, in that context or any form, please let me know.
And yes, I do believe the sending of the volume by Sphere to the disaster relief fund at the appropriate time was checked out. Perhaps Caz will confirm this with Keith when she gets back after the weekend. I don't have time to check the archives at the moment, but I do recall that was what was reported. I am afraid you are going to find that it has been established that Sphere sent the donation at the time of the disaster and that your wish that Mike really did not have the book until after he had the diary will not come true.
And you also say:
"And (more importantly) your question is grossly irrelevant if the diary was composed in 1888/89."
And once again, you miss the point. Since, as of now, we are arguing about when the diary was composed, the question becomes immediately relevant because it speaks to the likelihood of the line being in the diary and in the home of the person (if you like) who first appeared with the diary. That speaks as evidence, at least initially and in a circumstantial way, to it not being written in the 19th Century. That's why it remains a relevant question. If we knew the diary was composed in 1888, Peter, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So it is your objection that becomes irrelevant at this point.
As to my sentence -- ""But the people who brought forth the diary did." -- the phrase "the people who brought forth the diary" was not meant to imply that these people were involved in the creation or even knew it was a forgery or knew where it came from or that they did not, just that they were the family attached to it once Mike took it to Doreen's (that's all I meant by "brought forth"). There was no intention on my part to suggest involvement in anything on either of their parts in that particular phrase. Sorry if I was not clear there.
Finally, Peter, if your case is in any way based on sentences like "Trust me, that's what a scouser would do." you have no hope of ever establishing anything.
But it seems that you need sentences like this, Peter, because (I have to say it again) you have no evidence. There is still not a single piece of evidence that links this book to the real James Maybrick in any way, shape, or form. There's no evidence that even begins to place it reliably in the proper century, for God's sake. And so you're stuck arguing in a Feldmaniacal way, leaving logic to the wind and assuring us all that you know "what a scouser would do" and that should be good enough for us.
Well, it’s not, of course. Some of us still need to see just one piece of credible evidence that suggests the real James Maybrick had anything at all to do with this little book. Perhaps that makes us too demanding. Or perhaps there just isn't any. That would seem to tell us something.
But I can't talk about it today. I am in a golf tournament in a couple of hours (the first day of a two-day event) and then, this afternoon, my local football team plays what very well might be its last game of the season -- a playoff game in Philadelphia. If they lose, their season is over. They have never won a game, in the entire history of the team, when the temperature has been below 40 degrees. It will be below that this afternoon in Philly. That's not promising.
All the best to everyone. I won't be around the boards as much for the next week or so, as I have the new semester beginning and a writing project that needs my immediate attention. But I'll be here now and then, when I can sneak away to read the debate.
Now its off to golf and football. Happy Saturday!
--John
PS: Is it just me, or did that last missive from the good Sir Melvin have a somewhat softer edge to it? There seemed to be a reduction in the frequency of the invectives. Could he be mellowing a bit? Could he gradually be becoming a friendly old bear, after all? |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:59 am | | Hi Peter
You can't say that there is 'nothing which favours this theory [getting the book from Sphere] over and above the theory that I have outlined which involves Mike buying the Sphere guide after discovering the Crashaw quote.'
There isn't 'nothing'. We have his own sister's confirmation that he had the book, there's his girlfriend's statement that the book was leant to her son in Mid-1994, and there's Alan Gray's statement that Mike mentioned the book to him by name and cited significance in the first week of September 1994. Until the testimony of these witnesses can be shaken, you can't say that there's 'nothing'.
And I can't buy the idea that Mike purchased the Sphere guide just to learn more. What could have learned from his own copy that he couldn't have learned from the library copy? And, frankly, as Paul quotes me as saying, Mike didn't have many books and his knowledge of the Ripper and MAybrick cases struck me as minimal and certainly not what I'd have expected from someone who had dedicated months to research.
I don't know the source for Mike saying that someone at the library told him that the Sphere book was on sale at a second-hand book store. Can you enlighten me? |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 12:25 pm | | Hi Paul
It seems that there is a difference of opinion between yourself and Anne Barrett. Not the first!!
Anne says that when Mike got the diary he buried himself in research, gobbling up every book that he could. That is why I thought it would make sense for him to want his own copy of the Sphere guide having discovered it in the library - after all he'd be able to read it in the comfort of his own home with a nice cup of tea.
"And, frankly, as Paul quotes me as saying, Mike didn't have many books and his knowledge of the Ripper and MAybrick cases struck me as minimal and certainly not what I'd have expected from someone who had dedicated months to research."
I'm not sure what to make of this, Paul, as I'm fairly sure that you believe the diary is a forgery and that the Crashaw quote came from the Sphere guide, but now you seem to be suggesting that Mike had nothing to do with the 'forgery' as his knowledge of the two cases is/was minimal and, let's face it, {if} the diary is a forgery it was not knocked up in a couple of afternoons with no research.
"...and there's Alan Gray's statement that Mike mentioned the book to him by name and cited significance in the first week of September 1994."
But this can't be right, Paul. Mike didn't even tell Shirley until 30th September 1994 that he had found the Crashaw quote - and it was, what?, a couple of weeks after that until he is supposed to have realised that he had a copy of the Sphere guide 'at home'.
I gleaned the bit about someone at the library telling Mike that the Sphere book was available at a second hand store from the interview tapes where Shirley and Keith were asking Mike questions. I'm not sure who else is on the tapes. Honestly Paul, I didn't make any notes at the time and have only listened to the tapes once, it's just something that I remember Mike saying on the tape.
But, if John is correct and Mike's story about acquiring the Sphere books checks out then all this is irrelevant - I think.
Cheers
Peter |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 12:41 pm | | John
"What, are you seriously suggesting that there are a bunch of people out there that had this quote somewhere in their house and never realized it? Any evidence for this? I can't imagine it's true."
Err, yes John, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
"But fine, if anyone out there now knows that the quote was in their house in 1994, but they didn't realize it at the time, send me e-mail too."
Now John, you are just being facetious. How can you say "if anyone out there knows that the quote was in their house in 1994, but they didn't realize it at the time ..." and manage to keep a straight face? This was your original question:
"So, everyone, how many of you, in 1994, had a copy of the line "O costly intercourse of death" somewhere in your house?.
My point is that it would be perfectly possible for someone to have a particular 'quote' in their house in 1994 without realising it. It is also possible that they still wouldn't realise it eight years later. It is also very possible that Mike Barrett would probably never have realised that he had the Crashaw quote in his house if the whole diary saga hadn't happened, because without the diary he wouldn't have gone looking for the quote, wouldn't have found it and wouldn't have realised that he owned a copy of a book with the quote in.
But I suspect you knew all of this John. As a 'for instance', my father collects 'Readers Digests' (I believe you have them over there),he's probably got literally hundreds of them - but I doubt he could tell you what is in every single one of them. He also has a chest load of books he was given when his father died, but I very much doubt he has opened any of the covers let alone read them so thoroughly that he could tell you all the literary quotes contained therein.
Therefore, John, my point remains perfectly valid and for once your logic has eluded you.
For your original question to have any substance would involve the people who had the Crashaw quote in their home in 1994 not being aware of it then, but having become aware of it between then and now. So you know every quote in every book in your library, do you?
John, there could be a hundred thousand people out there who had the Crashaw quote in their homes in 1994, but how are they supposed to answer your question if they don't know it's there!
It's like asking "How many undiscovered islands are there in the mediterranean?"
It's an impossible question to answer.
But you carry on being facetious if that's all you've got against the diary. And I'll carry on being responsible.
I hope the Bucs do well. Your 'other' team Newcastle United did well today, winning 3 - 1 at home against Leeds, which is reasonably helpful to the reds of Manchester who don't play until tomorrow.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 06:52 pm | | Hi Peter
If Mike really did gobble up every book about the Ripper and Maybrick he could find, either he didn’t find many books or he didn’t remember much of what he read. The impression I've received from Mike is that he had minimal knowledge of both cases. And not only that, but I note that he has similarly exhibited no knowledge of anything to do with the forgery. And that's why Mike’s ownership of the Sphere book seems to be the only evidence linking Mike to the forgery and is why it is so important.
Which in turn is why Alan Gray’s statement is so crucial. You see, if Mike identified the Sphere book to Alan Gray in the first week of September 1994 and did appreciate its significance as proof of his participation in the forgery, then Mike had to have known the source of the Crashaw quote before he reported its discovery to Shirley on 30th September. So was Alan Gray remembering the dates correctly? Is there any supporting evidence such as dated written notes or a tape of his interview with Mike?
It's all a tad more complicated than that because we also have Melvin Harris's positive assertion that Mike lodged the Sphere book with his solicitor 'long before' his break with Anne and Alan Gray's statement that he confirmed with Mike's solicitor that 'a' book was lodged there. And, of course, we have Mike's girlfriend's testimony that this is balderdash and that Mike leant the Sphere book to her son in mid-1994.
Make of it what you will!
Cheers |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 07:05 pm | | Hi Peter,
I stopped by because the Bucs' ship is sinking quickly into the night (as I suspected it would) and I was stuck up against two different trees today on the golf course and took two big numbers, putting myself out of contention, and so I had nothing to do but morosely wander the web. It's a sad day, but the right little pill and a beer has made it a bit better.
My point about the quote is simple, Peter. It is not the sort of thing many people are going to have at home. Almost no one, in fact. It's from a poem that's barely ever anthologized, there are only a couple of editions of Crashaw's complete works available and most people don't have one of them, and it is not a piece that's often written about, so it's not going to be cited in journals or essays like the one in the Sphere Guide often at all. I know this, Peter. It's my job. These five words from this specific poem were not likely to have been in very many households in all of England, let alone in Liverpool, in 1994 (nor are they today). I could send out a post and everyone who had them could write back, even everyone who didn't know they had them could be informed that they did by a magic poetry fairy, and they could write to me, and I'd still get barely any, if any e-mails. And yet the Barrett's happened to have them, partially extracted for just the right lines, in of all places, a prose essay on a completely different author. And the Barrett's also had the diary. Those are just the facts. They must be carefully considered.
Now Paul has done an excellent job of trying to trace the where and when of Mike's mentioning of the Sphere Guide and the stories are very confusing and there's clearly a lot we don't know yet about who knew what when or realized the significance of what when. But we do know that those lines at one point appeared twice simultaneously in that house -- once in the Sphere Guide and once in the diary. And that seems significant.
I certainly don't know every quote in my library. But even though I have a pretty big one and most of it is literature and literary critical studies, I knew when I was asked that I didn't recognize that line. And upon looking for it, it became clear that I didn't have it in my house.
So I'll make things easier, Peter.
OK everyone -- you know the five words -- "O costly intercourse of death." Check and see if you have them in your house right now (assuming you didn't pick up the poem after reading here or somewhere about the line in the diary). How many people can find this line in a book in their own homes at the moment?
Send along that mail.
Now I must watch the sad finish to the football. As I mentioned, I'll be gone for a few days. But I'll return and expect you all to be here, still going around and around when I do.
All the best on a sad day,
--John
PS: Peter, Paul is right about the witnesses' testimony. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
