Archive through 18 January 2002

** 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 18 January 2002

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!: Archive through 18 January 2002

Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 12 January 2002 - 09:53 pm
Hi Peter, How are things with you ? If those people involved with the diary had been given polygraph tests on day one then the chances are that this saga would have been nipped in the bud.But no that was too easy and all the things that should have been done were not.To my knowledge she has never been questioned by a professional team with a great deal of experience in such matters. How about someone known to Anne Graham asking her if she would be prepared to take a polygraph test now? I for one would like to know her answer to that question.
Author: Peter Wood Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 02:59 pm
Hear hear Ivor. I second that emotion - coming as it does from a person with a different point of view to the diary from my own. John - Guess what? I've got those five little words in my house!!! I went looking through every book I own - every single one of them - and came across it in a book by an author called Shirley Harrison. The book is called 'The diary of Jack the Ripper'. I knew what you were getting at with your question, John. And yes, the odds on it happening are long, but the truth is that we don't know the truth! Paul - I read with interest that Alan Gray is purported to have said that he confirmed with Mike's solicitor that a book was lodged there. This would be the same solicitor then who told Paul Feldman that he was in possession of proof that Mike did not forge the diary. And there is no way that in that instance he could have been referring to the Sphere guide! And the other thing to note, following Paul Feldman's dealings with Richard Bark Jones, is that no solicitor would confirm anything with Alan Gray off hand. If Gray asked Bark Jones "Did Mike lodge the Sphere book with you?", then I strongly suspect Bark Jones would have replied along the lines of " ...should such a book exist ...". And one more thing. The police were supposed to have investigated the diary - at Melvin Harris' instigation. Believe it or not most coppers aren't stupid, if they believed that Mike's solicitor held proof positive that Mike did forge the diary then they would get that proof and Mike's solicitor would probably be charged with being an accessory after the fact. So the whole sorry tale of Mike lodging the book with his solicitor before Shirley came up with the idea that 'Oh Costly ...' could be a quote is pure bunkum, and nobody, certainly not the other side, has proven anything. And this does not preclude the idea that Mike could independently have realised the importance of ' ...oh costly ..." before Shirley did, found it wherever, then bought the book at the second hand store. Paul (Begg). I take your point on board about you having questioned Mike and come to the conclusion that he had little knowledge about either the Maybrick or Ripper cases. Surely that carries weight for the 'Mike could not have been the forger' case? And if Mike isn't the forger, and Mike took the diary to London, and nobody (publishers aside) has made any money out of the diary apart from Mike and Anne ...then what does this leave us with? You still have to break Anne's story, the very same story that Keith believes in. So lets follow Ivor's suggestion - and subject Anne to a polygraph test. Then when it comes back and proves that Anne isn't lying, maybe - just maybe, some of you will start to believe that the diary could be genuine. It's certainly the direction that the evidence is headed. Cheers Peter P.s. Man Utd won 3 - 1 and Liverpool could only draw with Arsenal ...all of which leaves the mighty reds of Manchester back at the top of the tree.
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:07 pm
Peter, Yes, I had already mentioned the exception of the diary case for those who had the lines. The fact that this is the only reason almost anyone is likely to have these lines in their house should tell you something in itself. One other little note Peter. Nobody, and I mean nobody in this discussion, including Shirley and Melvin and Paul and Caz and you and me, know precisely when (and if) Mike lodged the Sphere Guide with Richard BJ. I know this, because I wrote to old BJ myself, as did Shirley, several times, as did Peter B., I believe, as did many others. And no one could get an answer. Make of this what you will. But understand that the simple fact is that we don't know when Mike gave this book to old BJ; therefore, neither side of this debate is helped in any way since the accurate information remains unavailable. The only people helped by this one are the people who spend their time around here reminding people on all sides how much we still don't know. Consequently, just as they cannot claim with supporting evidence that BJ got the book before Mike spoke to Shirley, you cannot claim the story about Mike giving the book to BJ before he spoke to Shirley is "pure bunkum." You have no idea. Like the Feldmanator, you offer a conclusion despite the fact that you can't possibly offer a conclusion. You don't have the necessary information. No one around here does. That's why many people around here see your approach and your rhetoric of conclusions as illogical and rash. Not a rash, Peter. Just rash. Just thought I'd drop in on that point. All the best, --John
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 14 January 2002 - 04:19 am
Peter So you are calling Alan Gray a liar? Seriously, though, we can�t just dismiss the testimony of someone (who is an ex-policeman with two sons in the Force by the way) because we feel a solicitor would or would not have done this or that. We must have a good and far more solid reason for questioning someone�s testimony. And the police investigation was of claims made by Robert Smith, not of the validity of the �diary� per se. And they wouldn�t have questioned anyone about the Sphere book unless they knew it existed, which they didn�t. And Richard Bark-Jones would not have told them anything if the �diary� was not lodged with him at the time, which it may not have been. And even if it had been, Mr Bark-Jones may not have known the significance of the book. You do make a valid point that has never occurred to me or, I think anyone else, about whether or not Richard Bark-Jones would have retracted Mike Barrett�s confession to Harold Brough if he, Mr Bark-Jones, possessed the Sphere book and other items deposited with him by Mike Barrett for use as proof that he was the forger. Buying the Sphere book at a second-hand store is fast becoming something that Mike could have done, but beyond a broad sense in which we can suppose that anyone could do anything, we have no evidence that Mike could have done this. Let�s at least know where it is that Mike ever mentioned a second-hand book store. And, yes, I know what I'm saying makes it look like Mike might not be the forger � which is actually what I have been saying now for what is getting to be frighteningly close to a decade. And yes, we should indeed look more closely at Anne�s story because it's (a) true, (b) a lie and Anne alone or with others is the forger, or (c) her story was invented to lay claim to some of the monies floating around and we actually have not the foggiest notion where the 'diary' came from except that it was possibly given to Mike by Tony Devereux. I�ve been saying that too. But as for polygraph tests, can we buy one in Woolworth? I�m being facetious, of course, but a polygraph isn�t something you can just walk in off the street and do is it? And I seem to recall that the results aren�t 100% reliable either.
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 14 January 2002 - 08:15 am
Hello. A comment. I really don't think anyone should make too much of Mike's lawyer's denial. When Mike confessed to Brough, he said that he had written it himself and that Devereux had 'sod all' to do with it. By stating this was "catagorically false", Mr. Bark-Jones clearly isn't stating that the diary isn't a recent hoax or that Barrett isn't well aware of its true origins. He's not saying that it isn't genuine, either. It only means that Bark-Jones woke up to see his client in the Liverpool Post, and [after choking on his toast] rang up Mike to find out what the hell was going on. Mike was immediately put in a rehabilitation center, and a denial was sent to Brough. Mr. B-J probably only meant that his client denied everything the morning after. An event commonly known as damage control, and almost universally seen after one's client shoots himself in the wallet. But what if I take the more intriguing view that Mr. Barke-Jone's really does know the answer to the Maybrick puzzle? I'd have to ask myself one question: If the diary is an old document of obscure origins, how could Mr. Bark-Jones possibly have evidence to this effect? It would seem to me that only way he could have "proof" of Mike's statement being false is that he had some indication of its recent origin. The point is moot, though. Even if Mr. B-J knows something, we never shall hear it, particularly if it's damaging to his client. It's privileged. His lips are sealed.
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 14 January 2002 - 09:57 am
Hi RJP �With regard to the statement (confession) recently made by Michael Barrett that he had, himself, 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. Mr Barrett is now in the Windsor Clinic, where he is receiving treatment.� I suppose that it could be inferred from �I am in a position to say� that Mr Bark Jones�s had privileged information, but I think it quite clearly means no more than I have been authorised by my client to say� And I�d have thought that Mr Bark Jones certainly wouldn�t have said anything at all without the authority of his client. So the denial is actually exactly what it looks like, an admission by Mike that what he�d told Harold Brough was �totally incorrect and without foundation� � i.e., he did not forge the diary himself. Whether or not this was damage limitation or a genuine and heartfelt admission remains to be guessed at. I can�t think of any evidence offhand to support one or the other. The question is, though, would Mr Bark Jones have issued a denial on his client�s behalf if he knew the denial was a lie, as he may have done if, as we have been assured, he possessed the Sphere book and other evidence?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 14 January 2002 - 09:59 am
Hi All, Hi John and Peter, I�m not sure anyone was able to confirm with Sphere that the volumes were sent to Mike for the Hillsborough appeal in mid-1989. Don�t forget five years had elapsed by the time it became an issue. But if I�m wrong about this, Keith will no doubt let me know when he reads the latest posts. But, as Paul said in a recent post, we do have some support for Mike�s story here. (Shirley confirmed with Jenny that he did lend her son the volumes for example.) And to me it does at least appear to have some logic to it, both in the timing and his behaviour. Mike reckons the books looked too �heavy� to sell for the appeal, so he put them in the attic and forgot about them. In January 1994 Anne left him, and so it makes absolute sense that he would have been sorting through some of his stuff by the May, and that he came across the volumes again in the attic and wondered if Jenny�s son could use them. And in fact, on page 285 of Shirley�s Blake edition, she writes: �On June 21st 1994 Sally and I went to see Michael in a new home, where he was living with a lady who had taken him under her wing.� Thus far the Sphere book�s life story does at least sound logical and reasonable if Mike had no idea that it contained �O costly..� when he brought the set back down from the attic to take to Jenny�s. But how and when did he find out, if he didn�t find the quote in the library book and remember seeing the same book among those he had handled only recently? Shirley used the details Mike had given her when asking the library to locate their copy of the book. And responding to one of RJ's recent points, I spoke to Keith briefly on Friday, and it appears that Shirley did get swift confirmation that the book was available on the shelves, and the �O costly..� page was duly faxed to her on 6th October 1994. So the fact that the book was in an upstairs repository by the time Melvin Harris made his own enquiries is irrelevant. Was it all carefully thought-out bluff and double bluff on Mike�s part? Did he know all along that the book was safe at Jenny�s? Did he check that the library had a copy before lying to Shirley about finding the quote there first? This is the part where all logic and reason leave the scene - that careful thought and planning shot to pieces by announcing almost in the same breath that a copy of the same book had been in his home since 1989! Now obviously Melvin�s account, derived from Alan Gray�s information, is in direct conflict with Jenny�s evidence, and doesn�t sit well with the position taken by Mike�s solicitor immediately following Mike�s first confession in June 1994 (regardless of the reasons behind that position). Looking back through some notes I made, I found one where I wrote: �Melvin has since clarified that he means Mike�s Sphere was lodged long before June 1994, although he now writes, �The actual date of lodgement of the book prior to that break is uncertain. The only person who can give the exact day and month is the solicitor used by Mike.� And this: �June 30th 1994 Mike�s solicitor issues statement saying Mike�s confession �was totally incorrect and without foundation.�� If the solicitor had been holding any books, documents or statements at the time that might conceivably have contained evidence that Mike was involved in forgery, he could have restricted himself to saying that his client was not in full control of his faculties when he confessed and left it there. That would have been totally reasonable in the circumstances and would not have risked compromising his own position. But whatever the truth (and Alan Gray�s information regarding the late summer of 1994 remains sketchy, unconfirmed and unobtainable), I still can�t see what information led Melvin to state that the book was lodged before June. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise. Finally, John, I have a question for you. I do understand your problem with Mike having two �O costly..�s under his roof and one not being connected to the production of tother. (I also understand your problem, though to a slightly lesser degree, with Mike managing to find those five little words in the library, if he didn't already know which book contained them.) But if I accept that the quote was taken from Mike�s Sphere, and put in the diary at some point after mid-1989, have you any ideas for me as to how this worked in practice, with Mike or Anne as contributor, and the composer (whoever that was) as the one who approved and included it in their work? Thanks. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 14 January 2002 - 10:22 am
Hi again all, I�d like to make an observation regarding Melvin�s message on the ink question, kindly posted by Peter Birchwood. If I understand him correctly, Melvin is saying that there is no way that AFI could compare the proportions of chloroacetamide in the ink samples tested and in liquid Diamine (or any other formula for that matter). I have a couple of questions, if Peter wouldn�t mind passing them on. Could Melvin clarify whether he means that a comparison can�t be made using AFI�s results because he didn�t ask them to make one? Or because the technology simply doesn�t exist? We know from Robert Smith�s recent post that AFI reported to Shirley that they detected and determined chloroacetamide at 6.5 parts per million. So could Melvin also comment on this figure and what interpretation, if any, can be put on it? Does it allow a comparison or not? Apart from the Sphere book, we know of only one other piece of evidence that exists which could bind one of the modern players to the creation of the diary � the Kane handwriting samples. Melvin told us that when he had more time he would clarify his position on those samples. Perhaps, Peter, you could remind him? Thanks. I can understand why Alan Gray might be reluctant to allow free access to certain evidence if he has been left out of pocket by the investigation. Melvin posted back on 10th October 2000: On January 19th 1995 Mrs Harrison tried to get possession of this book from Mr Gray but he refused to play ball. Why she needed the volume was never made clear. This important piece of evidence is in safe keeping. But Melvin did say on a more recent occasion that the Sphere book could be inspected. So perhaps Peter would ask him for his comments on the following suggestion made by Robert Smith in his recent post: 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. It�s coming up to the seventh anniversary of Shirley trying to get access to this book. Isn�t it high time arrangements were made to settle the matter once and for all, for the record? At present it leaves room for people to wonder what the problem is. Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 14 January 2002 - 12:02 pm
Hi Caz It might be worth mentioning that according to Alan Gray (via Melvin Harris), Mike extended Alan Gray�s brief in the first week of September 1994 to helping him find a newspaper which would pay for his confession. He at that time named the Sphere book and stated its significance. But by the last week of September 1994 Mike had undertaken research for Shirley Harrison and on 30th September identified the quote and declared that he had a copy of the very book in which he�d found it, effectively destroying its worth as evidence that he�d forged the �diary�. Why? What, if anything, happened during September 1994 to cause Mike to change from genius forger to genius researcher and to throw away his supposedly cherished proofs of the former? And why, I wonder, in the three months between the beginning of September and the beginning of December didn�t Alan Gray ever see the Sphere book for himself? And why, after Mike told the world about the Sphere book on 30th September, did Alan Gray carry on with his task of finding Mike a publisher? Simple answers throughout I expect. But there�s a lot of confusion about what Mike told Alan Gray and when he told it and whether he said his Sphere book was known to his solicitor or was lodged with his solicitor. In fact we don�t know whether Mike first told Alan Gray about stuff lodged with his solicitor or whether Alan Gray was first told this by an employee of Mike�s solicitor. And we don�t know whether anything ever really was lodged with Mike�s solicitor prior to 6th October 1994.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 14 January 2002 - 04:51 pm
Good questions Paul. Maybe Mike was weighing up between September and December, as I believe RJ was suggesting, the pros and cons of letting the various interested parties have certain information, depending on where he saw his best interests lying. The problem with this is that Mike told Shirley about having owned the book since 1989 at a time when, as you suggest, he could have been giving Gray all the details, and explaining its significance, particularly as he had originally been hired only to find Anne and Caroline, and would have needed to know what might be considered evidence, and why, regarding the whole diary thing. And if Mike was desperate for his June confession to be believed for personal reasons - so desperate that he was prepared to risk all his future diary income at that point - but later thought he might try to cut his losses by selling his story, it seems that he was again desperate by January 1995 for personal reasons when he made his sworn statement, with once again no financial incentive. Simple answers? I wish. All very confusing if you ask me. Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 06:33 am
Hi Caz Maybe Mike was weighing up between September and December, as I believe RJ was suggesting, the pros and cons of letting the various interested parties have certain information, depending on where he saw his best interests lying. Yes. But what, I wonder, shifted Mike from thinking he was better off confessing to a newspaper for money and backing it up with the Sphere book and other stuff he�d got lodged at his solicitor to thinking he was better off using the Sphere book to ingratiate himself with Shirley and climbing back aboard the �pro-diary� ship? And when Mike first named the Sphere book to Alan Gray and cited its significance, I wonder what significance he thought it had? I mean, the quote could have come from any easily available, off-the-shelf collection of popular quotations, so what value did a well-known quote in the Sphere book have as evidence of anything? People would just have said, "Aw, c'mon Mike, that quote can be found in a million reference books. It's as well known as 'a rose by any other name...'. That book doesn't prove a thing, mate.' Well, of course, we know that the quote could not have come from any easily available, off-the-shelf collection of popular quotations. We know that the quote is in fact extremely obscure. But did Mike know that? How did he know? And if he didn't know, why did he think the Sphere book was significant? And why just the Sphere book? Why weren't the other sources he used equally significant? And if the Sphere book was significant because it was the source of Mike�s only contribution to the forgery, why (as you say) didn�t Mike mention it when in June 1994 he confessed to Harold Brough? (We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that money had any relevance at that time whatsoever). And even if we assume that the whole business of knowing the significance of the Sphere book and having lodged it with his solicitor is just a load of taradiddle and we suppose instead that Mike discovered the quote in the Sphere book when he leant it to his girlfriend�s son, when did he appreciate that it was significant? Had anyone told him they were looking for and were having trouble finding the source of the quote? When did Shirley first mention it to Mike? Because if Mike didn�t know anyone was looking for the quote, he wouldn�t have realised that his discovery was important. And he wouldn�t have mentioned the book to Alan Gray in the first week of September 1994. In fact, if he didn�t realise the quote was important until Shirley told him, then even if he was the forger he wouldn�t have realised that the quote was obscure and that the Sphere book was accordingly significant as evidence of his complicity in the forgery. And if Shirley didn�t tell him that she was looking for the quote until the last week of September 1994, how come he was able to mention the significance of the Sphere book to Alan Gray in the first week of September 1994? Maybe we shouldn�t try to ascribe rational behaviour to someone who simply didn�t think or act rationally. Maybe if Mike could explain why he did this or that then everything would be as clear as the proverbial. But if it wasn�t for Alan Gray�s testimony that Mike mentioned the significance of the Sphere book to him in the first week of September 1994, I can�t immediately think of much if any evidence that Mike knew the significance of the book at that time at all. Or, if he did, it was only something he�d recently appreciated.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 10:55 am
Hi Paul, You make a very good point that I had not thought through properly before. Even if Mike had supplied the quote for the forged diary, and contributed little else, you are right - there is every chance that he wouldn't have appreciated how obscure the quote was, and therefore how useful (or incriminating) his ownership of the source would be - that is, until Shirley made him aware that no one had been able to identify it. It seems reasonable to think that the penny would have dropped when Shirley suggested Mike do something constructive, such as help her find where the mystery quote came from. And I believe she made that suggestion as a result of Mike's destructive decision to tell Harold Brough he had forged the diary himself. When she saw Mike on 21st June he was threatening to go to the press with his confession story, which he did three days later. So unless Shirley can narrow it down for us any further, she could have made the suggestion at any time between 21st June and shortly before Mike told Gray about his ownership of the Sphere book, or 30th September when he announced his library 'discovery', whichever came sooner. But even if we allow for the idea that Mike did supply the quote for the diary, but just didn't realise at first what made his Sphere book such a trump card, I'm left wondering what to make of his April 1999 appearance at the C&D, where he was still trying, and failing badly, to give any kind of believable account of himself as one of the forgers. Love, Caz
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 12:23 pm
Hi, Caz and Paul: That was my point of a few weeks ago, if you recall, that Mike, was and is no expert in obscure seventeenth century literature. Certainly his knowledge cannot be comparable to, for example, John Omlor, who knows exactly where Richard Crashaw fits into the pantheon of English writers of the day and who knows that the poem with the quotation is from a less well known work by a lesser known English poet of the period. Mike, by contrast, would probably have had no conception what the significance of the quotation would be for the Diary. This pertains then whether Mike supplied the quote for the Diary or not. I may be wrong about this, but I would theorize that Mike probably would have had, and probably still has, little knowledge of poetry and would not know a John Betjeman poem from a T. S. Eliot poem, or Wendy Cope from Richard Crashaw. Do you get the point? If we acknowledge this probable ignorance on Mike's part, I think it helps explain Mike's apparent vaccilation about the importance of the Sphere book containing the quote from Crashaw. Best regards Chris George
Author: Peter Wood Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 02:23 pm
Hi Chris, Hi everybody else, This is all good stuff. You are making good arguments for Mike not being involved in the 'forgery'. Thanks to Paul B. for pointing out something which I hadn't thought about before i.e. Mike could not have realised the significance of the quote - this is backed up by Chris's post above. Now, with regards to Richard Bark Jones. Further to his statement that Mike did not forge the diary, Paul Feldman phoned RBJ, thus from PHF p. 179: "I telephoned Mr Bark-Jones, and put it to him that his statement suggested he had information that proved that the diary was not forged by Michael Barrett and that he'd not needed Mike's permission to say so. 'You're the only one that spotted it', he said. That's pretty unequivocal. Mike's solicitor says Mike didn't forge the diary. Mike's solicitor confirmed to PHF that he hadn't needed Mike's permission to make the statement. And then this from P. 219: "From the early days of our investigation, I was aware of an envelope in the possession of Mike Barrett's original solicitor, Richard Bark Jones. This contained the true story of how the diary came into the home of the Barrets. The contents of this envelope, I deduced, was what enabled Mr Bark-Jones to state publicly that Mike Barrett had lied when confessing in the first place ...The next day, I phoned Bark-Jones. He confirmed that an envelope did exist but he could only open it with the permission of his client. Feldman has said it before. I'll say it again. If you think Mike forged the diary then you must include his solicitor on the deception. John O. "That's why many people around here see your approach and your rhetoric of conclusions as illogical and rash." Got any facts to back that up, John? Secret meetings in the chat room on a Tuesday night, perhaps? Once again your conclusions remain unestablished. Make it personal if you like, but whilst you have been concentrating on me and my performance I have been concentrating on the evidence. It is 'logical' that Mike's solicitor did not have the Sphere book in his possession when Mike "confessed" to Harold Brough. RBJ's statements to PHF prove that. Paul and Chris between them make a great point of showing that Mike was totally ignorant of the 'importance' of the Crashaw quote. So that's it. Nip to Woollies, put Anne on the polygraph, then follow her up with RBJ. Caz Hi, just one small point, Mike says on the tape that the Sphere books were on a window ledge in the small bedroom, not - as I had previously believed - in the attic. But that matters not, because I am increasingly coming to believe that Mike bought his copy of the Sphere guide from the second hand store he mentioned. I have to go - one of the children is crying. Cheers Peter
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 05:58 pm
hi Peter, Once again, it seems you missed the main point of what I wrote. If you had, as you say, "been concentrating on the evidence," you'd know that no one can yet claim to have established when (or even if) Mike lodged the Sphere Book with BJ. BJ isn't telling and neither is Mike or Alan and consequently there is simply no way to know precisely about the circumstances of the lodgment. Therefore, your rash claim that the story about Mike giving the book to BJ before he spoke to Shirley is "pure bunkum" remains only an expression of your own desires, falsely written in the form of an established conclusion (a la the Feldmanator). You can't know whether it is bunkum or not, and, given the paltry and conflicting state of the evidence in this matter, neither can anyone else. Any careful and responsible thinker is forced, upon examining the evidence and considering the lack of it in this instance, to admit that. And BJ's statement to PHF does not prove anything concerning when and if the book was actually lodged. As to whether "many people around here" consider your approach and your rhetoric less than logically sound, I apologize for that one. I will readily admit that this conclusion was simply based on my reading of the messages sent to the boards over the last few months. I'm perfectly happy to offer it solely as an unestablished reading of a series of texts and not as a statement of fact. I could reprint a whole bunch of posts by various people in support of it, if I wanted to take the time and space. But I don't. So I withdraw it. Now then, I do think we have to be careful about going too far in this claim of what Mike realized concerning the Crashaw quote. I agree with Chris that there's no reason to think Mike would have realized how obscure the line might be. But, to be fair, if he did put the quote in the diary he would have at least realized that the line he put in the diary came right off the page of a book he had in his own house and this would (or could) link him to the diary, no matter how common the quote actually was. One would think, at that point, he would at least know that this could be used or considered as evidence that he helped write the thing (and that's why I still don't understand why, if he did help write this thing, he kept the damn book around or just casually gave it to his friend's kid -- the point Caz has been making). But let's recall that the evidence remains backwards. Mike doesn't tell Brough about the book (even though he's making a case for himself as forger) and Mike does tell Shirley about the book (even though he wants her to believe in its authenticity). I'm not sure that we can just say that because he wouldn't have known the line was obscure, he wouldn't have thought of the Sphere Guide as linking him to the diary or as possible evidence. It's certainly possible that he wouldn't have in that case, but also certainly not necessary. I know this doesn't help. --John PS: Peter, speaking of PHF, you cite an interesting paragraph of his and highlight one particular sentence, offered in his usual assured and supremely confident style. Paul mentions an envelope and says: "This contained the true story of how the diary came into the home of the Barretts." Could you tell us how, exactly, PHF knows this to be true? How he is certain of this "fact?" Or are you just "believing" him? Let me explain to you why I'm confused (and more than a little suspicious that this is more of Feldman at his worst). A paragraph later, Paul writes: "I have always wondered whether the envelope contains correspondence from Tony Devereaux." And another paragraph later, BJ tells PHF that he cannot open the envelope without his client's permission. Do you see the problem? It is quite clear that Paul does not know what is in the envelope. And yet he has already written: "This contained the true story of how the diary came into the home of the Barretts." But he does not know this. He makes that clear in the next two paragraphs. He is simply wishing that this is what the envelope contains. He says he "deduced" it, thinking it must have been what allowed BJ to make his statement concerning Mike�s confession, but there is no evidence to support this deduction (which is not a deduction at all, actually, but a very weak induction). But here's my point. Paul knows that he does not know what is in the envelope. Paul is forced to demonstrate, in his own book, only two paragraphs later, that he does not know what is in the envelope. Paul makes a guess at what might be in it, but he cannot know. And yet, before explaining this, Paul actually writes, concerning the envelope, for all the suckers out there: "This contained the true story of how the diary came into the home of the Barretts." This is written as a known fact. The context is clear. You cite the entire paragraph yourself. "From the early days of our investigation, I was aware of an envelope in the possession of Mike Barrett's original solicitor, Richard Bark Jones. This contained the true story of how the diary came into the home of the Barretts." Peter, this is deceitful. This is irresponsible. This is why I still insist that Paul's book remains a travesty, bereft of careful thinking, critical analysis, or soundly established conclusions and filled only with expressions of desire masquerading as established facts. This is why this book is not to be trusted.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 11:31 pm
Hello. All this confusion about the date of Mike's lodging of the Sphere book: is this really compelling evidence that his claim of "inside knowledge" is suspect? Don't we have to say the same thing about the story Mike tries to pawn off when he later recants the confession to Keith & Shirley? Because if on tape Mike is implying that a staffer at the Liverpool Library told him he could buy the Sphere book secondhand we are also left with huge problems. Why would Mike be trying to imply this? To undermine what looks very bad? If he is lying here, is this telling us anything? We have no independent corroboration that Mike was ever at the library hunting down the quote; we have Robert Smith stating how difficult it is to find a used copy of the Sphere; we have Mike's sister independently confirming that Mike really did own the book back in the late 1980s. So this story looks like a complete fabrication. In other words, the claims Mike makes when he's trying to convince everyone that he has no idea where the diary came from are every bit as suspect as those he makes when he is so-called confessing. All we are really left with is that Mike owned the book from which the Crashaw quote almost certainly came. Mike confesses in a highly suspicious manner; Mike recants in a highly suspicious manner. I don't see how one can be more meaningful than the other.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 11:41 pm
Peter---Hello. I have to thank you for taking the time to quote the passage from Paul Feldman's book. This is precisely the passage I had in mind when I posted yesterday about Bark Jones' comments to the Liverpool Post. I repeat the comment: "But what if I take the more intriguing view that Mr. Barke-Jone's really does know the answer to the Maybrick puzzle? I'd have to ask myself one question: If the diary is an old document of obscure origins, how could Mr. Bark-Jones possibly have evidence to this effect? It would seem to me that only way he could have "proof" of Mike's statement being false is that he had some indication of its RECENT origin." Let me rephrase this. I don't know that Bark Jones knows anything. As I said yesterday, all I think he was doing was passing along Mike's "morning-after" recantation of his spontaneous confession to Brough [ie., Mike's now familiar pattern]. But if Bark Jones has some evidence that the diary is an old document, what possible reason could he have for keeping this private? It seems crazy to me.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:04 am
Hi John Yes, you are absolutely correct; if Mike didn�t know that the exceptional obscurity of the Crashaw quote made the Sphere book significant, the only significance it could have had for him was that it had provided the quote and that his ownership of the Sphere book thus linked him to the �diary�. I actually made that point and acknowledged that that it was entirely possible that for Mike a quotation rather than a factual detail distinguished the Sphere book from the provider of any other piece of data he�d used (such as the Punch cartoon or the empty tin matchbox). But whatever the book�s significance, when did Mike realise it was significant? And why? For reasons already given, we doubt that Mike realised the significance of the book when he confessed to Harold Brough. So the book became significant after that date. When? When he took it to Jenny�s? Did he discover the quote then? Did he realise at that time that owning the book connected him to the �diary�? But if he didn�t �discover� the quote at Jenny�s, when did he realise that it was significant? According to Melvin Harris:- �When he [Mike] changed the terms of engagement with Gray and asked him to find a newspaper willing to buy his story, he then named the book and described its significance. This was the first week in September 1994.� What significance did Mike describe? That he had a book containing the same quote as was in the �diary�? Well, as said, big deal. The quote could be very common. we know it isn�t, but neither Mike nor Alan Gray knew that. Yes, the book linked Mike to the �diary�, but only in the same way as anyone with a collection of quotations would have been linked to it (if the quote wasn�t so obscure - which they didn�t know it was). The thing is, we have absolutely no evidence that Mike realised the Sphere book had any significance before September 30 1994 � except Alan Gray�s statement that he was told about it during the first week of September 1994. And we do have some reasons for thinking that Mike�s tales about lodging it with his solicitor and not giving it to Harold Brough because no money was on the table are hogwash. All of which makes it reasonable to ask whether Alan Gray has remembered the date correctly. Could Mike have mentioned the book during the first week of October perhaps? Hi RJP You write: All this confusion about the date of Mike's lodging of the Sphere book: is this really compelling evidence that his claim of "inside knowledge" is suspect? We�re not dealing with what Mike has told us but with what Alan Gray reportedly said that Mike told him, namely that in the first week of September 1994 Mike named the Sphere book and stated its significance. And I am wondering what significance it was that Mike stated. Frankly, there seems to be no evidence that Mike ever did lodge the book with his solicitor before October 1994 apart from what we are told Alan Gray said. And what Mike told or did not tell Alan Gray is terribly confused. So it is legitimate to ask if there is any evidence that Mike ever did realise that the book had any significance whatever prior to September 30 1994. Hi Caz You wrote about when Shirley mentioned the obscurity of the Crashaw quote: �So unless Shirley can narrow it down for us any further, she could have made the suggestion at any time between 21st June and shortly before Mike told Gray about his ownership of the Sphere book�� In other words, Shirley could have mentioned it before June 1994 or at any time between June and September 1994. Keith made this very point back in 2000 and it was roundly and soundly rejected by Melvin Harris, who wrote: �Now, Keith Skinner is reporting that Mrs Harrison is claiming that PRIOR to June 1994 she was suggesting some research ideas for Mike including "identify the source for 'O costly'" Keith feels that if she has some notes to prove this "then it expands the time frame for Barrett to have legitimately discovered the Crashaw reference by September 30th 1994." Sorry, Keith, but your optimism is misplaced. It is shot to pieces by the fact that Mrs Harrison has gone on record to state that "I asked Michael to look in the Liverpool library. He badgered the staff there to help and sure enough he rang me within a few days and told me 'You will find it in the Sphere History of English Literature Volume 2.'" (Blake edition p282) Now A FEW DAYS before Sept 30th is very different from that early date before June 21st. Mrs Harrison is therefore admitting that the book research only began in late September. But Gray knew about the book itself by name in the first week of that month. (Melvin Harris, �DATES?�. Thursday, 02 November 2000- 06:31 pm, Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through November 04, 2000 In fact Melvin�s optimism might be misplaced if he is confusing (a) Shirley mentioning some research projects and (b) Shirley specifically suggesting that Mike look in the Liverpool library. These could be two entirely different events. So Shirley might indeed have alerted Mike to the significance of the quote before the last week of September 1994. We await Shirley�s confirmation on this point.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 08:13 am
Hi RJ, You wrote: '...the claims Mike makes when he's trying to convince everyone that he has no idea where the diary came from are every bit as suspect as those he makes when he is so-called confessing. All we are really left with is that Mike owned the book from which the Crashaw quote almost certainly came.' Blimey, we finally got there! Now, do you think the composer would have taken the quote from Mike and plopped it in the diary at what seemed to him like a reasonable spot with no questions asked? (What if it turned out to be written in the 20th century, for example?) And: 'But if Bark Jones has some evidence that the diary is an old document, what possible reason could he have for keeping this private?' I take it you mean what possible reason could Mike have for keeping this private? If so I tend to agree with you here. That would seem to make no sense at all. He would surely have used it in the early days when his story was doubted and before he ever thought he'd one day find himself confessing to forgery. But the envelope is nonetheless intriguing. Mike's solicitor said he could only open it with his client's permission, which might mean it was given to him already sealed, in which case he wouldn't know what it contains (beyond what Mike may have told him) or even if the contents have any relevance to the diary's true origins. We really are in the land of guesswork here, and unless Mike gives the word one day we'll never know. But it does strike me that if the envelope contains anything which could help Mike prove the diary is a modern fake, he has shown great restraint by not taking it in his darkest days and shoving it under Feldy's nose in triumph. In addition, it would have put paid to Anne's story and any fear that his daughter's name would be associated with Jack the Ripper. Love, Caz
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 10:01 am
There has been discussion about the period between Mike Barretts interview with Harold Brough which appeared in the "Daily Post" on the 27th June 1994 and the 30th September 1994 when he provided Shirley with the source of the "O costly intercourse..." quote. The answer may lie in the to-ing and fro-ing of the financial situation at this time coupled with the Barrett marriage problems. Although the "Diary" book had been published in October 1993, the Sunday Times had already declared it a fake and the original American publishers had pulled out. Within a short time, Scotland Yard started a fraud probe, and the diary had been found on a disk belonging to MB. In January 1994 Anne Barrett left her husband. She started divorce proceedings against MB "...the day the Daily Post printed the story." She has stated that he "... left me with no choice after speaking to the newspapers." Shortly after this on the 19th July 1994 she made the famous marathon phone call to Feldman which within a few days resulted in the new "in my family for years" provenance. The legal problems with the Sunday Times had been reflected in the royalty cheques that MB had received. It's instructive that one sent to him on the 13th September which reflected a statement sent on the 2nd September shows his share of the royalties for that period as £26,609.41 less legal expenses which had been previously invoiced as £24,223.14 plus Word Team expenses of £2,105.77 effectively leaving him nothing. It is perhaps not surprising that MB was at this time trying to find another source of income perhaps by selling his story as the great faker. However by the 27th September, things had changed. The new provenance had brought Feldman and his production company back into the picture. There was the promise of money to come via movie deals and a payment of £12,000 was to be made regarding the film deal. MB later believed that he would receive £70,000 from New Line Cinema although this was actually the total amount before the various splits were made. This surely was a motive for MB to retrench and at least for the period between the end of September and Christmas 1994 explain why he retracted his confession and again stated to Robert Smith that he had got the diary from Devereux. So it seems clear that differing stories during this period are related to whatever was best financially for MB: whether it meant more money to be the forger or more money to be the discoverer.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 01:57 pm
Hi Peter, That's fine right up until the last bit where you say that Mike had a motive 'to retrench and at least for the period between the end of September and Christmas 1994 explain why he retracted his confession and again stated to Robert Smith that he had got the diary from Devereux.' Why then would he have risked the £70,000 (he later believed was coming his way) within days of hearing about the new promise of money from the film by telling Shirley in early October that he had owned the very book containing 'O costly...' since 1989 - and only days after checking that the library contained a copy so he could say he'd miraculously discovered the quote there? Makes no sense to me and I've tried - goodness knows I've tried. Can you fathom it out? Love, Caz
Author: Peter Wood Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 02:55 pm
"As to whether "many people around here" consider your approach and your rhetoric less than logically sound, I apologize for that one. I will readily admit that this conclusion was simply based on my reading of the messages sent to the boards over the last few months. I'm perfectly happy to offer it solely as an unestablished reading of a series of texts and not as a statement of fact. I could reprint a whole bunch of posts by various people in support of it, if I wanted to take the time and space. But I don't. So I withdraw it." Thank goodness for that, John, you really let me off the hook there! Seeing as you don't want to 'take the time and space' I will abandon my latest project of printing all the nice things anyone ever said about John Omlor. It's only a short volume, right there in the library next to 'The book of Italian war heroes'. What Peter B. has posted would only make sense if Anne was working in partnership with Mike, and she plainly wasn't. In fact she was hiding from him, and Mike had to employ a P.I. to find her. Also he put her windows through. Not nice behaviour considering his daughter may have been in the house. Is this another "scene" that Mike and Anne 'staged' for the benefit of Feldman, Shirley and Robert? No, of course not. So Shirley's 'in my family ...' story is for her interests only. Oh, and by the way John, you still haven't broken Anne's story. Just thought I'd remind you of that. R.J. A friendly voice at last! It's almost a shame that I've got to take you to task for something ...and whilst I'm at it I may as well take John to task for not picking you up on it, because rest assured, if I had made the same point John would have jumped down on me from a great height with talk of 'rhetoric', 'illogical conclusions', 'wish fulfillment' etc etc. Here it is: "We have no independent corroboration that Mike was ever at the library hunting down the quote; we have Robert Smith stating how difficult it is to find a used copy of the Sphere; we have Mike's sister independently confirming that Mike really did own the book back in the late 1980s. Seriously R.J? Are you suggesting that on one hand we don't believe Mike was ever at the library (because it doesn't suit the detractors), but we can accept uncorroborated evidence from Mike's sister (an interested party, by the way) that Mike 'really did own the book back in the late 1980's'? You see, John Omlor won't let me use Anne's '...in my family for years' story as proof of anything, because the only corroboration comes from an interested party, her father Billy. But you are seriously suggesting that because Mike's sister says he had the book at the end of the 1980's we should just swallow that? No, the evidence (yes John, evidence) suggests that Mike knew sweet F.A. about the significance of the Sphere book or the Crashaw quote. Incidentally John, you may be in a position to do me a favour. Could you print the entire context in which 'O costly ...' appears in the Sphere book? I mean all the lines that are mentioned along with it. And is there any specific mention that that particular quote came from a poet long deceased? I'm just thinking along lines of something Caz raised - would someone just flicking through the Sphere guide, whose eyes settled on 'Oh costly ...' know that it was by someone who wasn't born in the 20th Century? I sincerely hope you can supply the information. And on that note I shall depart. Take care Peter.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 03:57 pm
Caz/Peter Wood--The title of the Sphere book in question is English Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674. Making an anachronism wasn't an issue. Peter Birchwood--A very well reasoned post. I'm convinced those early dismal payments are what started Mike's threats to confess; as Mike later stated in his confession, he felt 'hoodwinked' by those who became involved with the Maybrick diary. I think the financial struggles go a long way to explain his behavior, but we must also remember that Mike was also going through a divorce and was also battling various illnesses, including alcoholism. I was once accused on these boards by John Omlor for 'making excuses' for Mike, but I sincerely believe that the normal rules of reasoning don't apply when considering Mike's actions in 1994/1995. Regards, RP
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 04:17 pm
Would you not say that the Diary is an ingenious creation ? Not many present day stream of consciousness faction writers could have done it. Whoever did it could have made a lot more money through other means. The writer was creative much like Joseph Smith and the "Book of Mormon". The interesting question to me is the WHY? Goodness, there is enough CANT on JTR to sink a battleship. Why, James Maybrick? Why not Lewis Carroll-Sickert-Thompson?This thing was not going to be a worldwide popular seller.Most of the books on JTR are not best sellers in any sense.In fact they are probably collectors items that will double in value in a few years.
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:25 pm
Peter W., I only have a moment. If you check the archives of the Maybrick Diary board, you'll see that someone, a while back, posted a jpg of the entire page of the Sphere Guide that has the Crashaw quote on it. You can read Rick's argument about Crashaw and Herbert and see the few other lines from the poem that he cites on that page. To answer your question, yes, it is clear in the Ricks essay (and from the volume as a whole) that he is talking about 17th Century poets. And Peter, I am not trying to "break Anne's story." I am still waiting, in fact, for any reliable evidence that links this book to James Maybrick. But in reading "Anne's story" it does occur to me that it seems to have no real evidence behind it (just like the diary). Why does this keep happening? But since you're giving assignments, Peter, here's one for you. Everyone before you seems to have accepted the story about the Hillsborough stadium disaster and the Sphere contribution to the relief fund. You have now suggested it's a lie. Why not check it out? Drop a line to Sphere and ask them to check their records and see if they really did send some books to this cause and if the Lit. Guides were among them. It should be easy enough for them to confirm or deny. It's possible that Keith or Shirley or someone has already done this. I can't recall. If they have, the story must have checked out, or we'd have heard about it and it wouldn't still be assumed as fact. So either they've never confirmed it or it's true. If the former is actually the case, you still have a chance to prove Mike didn't have the Sphere Guide back before 1994, Peter. I say go for it. Now I must rush off to happy things. All the best, --John PS: Peter W, you've written that "What Peter B. has posted would only make sense if Anne was working in partnership with Mike." I've re-read Peter B.'s post and I don't understand this comment of yours. Why? What, in Peter B's account of things, suggests that it would only make sense if Mike and Anne were working together? Please explain. It seems to me they could have both been pursuing their own separate interests at the time and the exact same events could have happened.
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:57 pm
The trouble with the idea that Mike was influenced by the film money is that we don�t know that he knew anything about that money before 30st September 1994. True, Mike�s solicitors received a letter dated 27th September 1994 saying that £12,000 was due from Feldman, but we don�t know when this information was conveyed to Mike. Indeed, in his sworn affadavit dated January 25th 1995 he alluded to this money when he wrote: �It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of £20,000 before the end of the month. She was all over me and we even made love�� He doesn�t say that he hadn�t previously heard the figure of £12,000, but I think one could fairly draw this inference. However, even if we assume that he he heard about the money at the same time as his solicitor, it could have persuaded him to surrender the Sphere book to Shirley in an effort to ingratiate himself with her and climb back about the vessel pro Diary, but by that time Mike had already accepted Shirley�s challenge to find the quote (and if we believe Mike, he was already a day or so into his research stint). As for the £70,000 due from New Line, Mike appears to have first heard about this from Robert Smith in a letter dated January 13th January 1995. It can have played no part in Mike�s decision to announce the source of the quote. However, Mike could have heard about the film deals before those letters were written. In a letter to Fortean Times dated 20th October 1994, Paul Feldman said: � A good few weeks after Mr Barrett's article appeared in the Liverpool Echo a deal with Ted Turner, on behalf of New Line Cinema (makers of 'The Mask'), was concluded with MIA Productions.� So could Mike have found out about the film deals before the last week of September 1994. But when did he find out about them? Before 1st September? Because if it was before the 1st September then why did Mike, faced with the prospect of more money than he�d seen in one go before, expand Alan Gray�s brief to encompass finding him a newspaper that would pay for his confession? And why did Alan Gray continue to seek that newspaper unto and beyond December 1994, even though Mike had blown he single best piece of evidence by announcing his discovery of the quote? As I keep saying, there is probably a simple explanation, though whether we�ll ever know what it is for certain remains to be seen because answers are now likely to be contaminated by the questions, but it is reasonable to assume that when Mike enlisted Alan Gray�s help to find a newspaper willing to pay for his confession he did not know about the movie deals. So for money to have been an issue, Mike must have found out about the deals after the first week of September. Not impossible, but I can�t recall any evidence for it.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:48 am
Hi RJ, John, I am well aware that the title of the Sphere book in question is English Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674, and therefore anyone taking the quote from it and passing it on to the composer/penman, or copying it directly onto the diary page, knew it was safe to use. What I was trying, and failing, to get at was your opinions on whether the composer/penman ever saw the source himself, and if not what questions he would have asked the provider of the quote before gaily sticking it in with his own work. And if he did sensibly check the source as part of the process, would he have simply handed it back to his handler/placer, binding defect and all, with no concerns about the disposal or otherwise of this particular element of his forgery? Anyone working on such a project with someone like Mike would be a foolish faker not to use belt and braces tactics over anything he was directly involved with. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 09:05 am
Hi Caz, I was actually answering Peter's question about the quote in the book. I had missed yours about what the penperson (if they did not use the source themselves but got the quote from someone who did) might have needed to know. I understand your point about working with Mike, and agree with it. It might still be possible though, that our penperson was simply given the complete written text and was left out of the research and composition process entirely and the penperson just wrote what they were told -- that is, their job was transcription and they went along with that assignment. Of course, they would nonetheless have had to play a more active role in the layout process. They would have had to had a hand in the page breaks and the size changes in the writing and the underlines and the layout and strike throughs in the verse and the various other graphic elements of the text. Because it was, after all, their hand making the marks, even if they were only transcribing the words of others. And the layout of that particular page still interests me, because I still think that the Crashaw quote and the line about chickens with their heads cut off on that page seem like inserts. They certainly appear to interrupt the narrative. Anyway, Caz, I don't know the answer to your question, of course. But those are some related thoughts. All the best, --John PS: None of this addresses the problem of why a penperson would bother to be a penperson, if they were not Mike or Anne. Whoever held the pen, if it was someone other than Mike or Anne, was apparently out of the money loop that Peter B. chronicled for us, and there was no shot at fame or notoriety, since they would have to remain anonymous given their role. So why take the risk? Would it just be for the thrill of having fooled the world, even though almost no one would know that they had fooled the world? Is this the sort of motive we are particularly likely to attach to any of our suspects so far?
Author: david rhea Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 09:57 am
If the Diary was written in the 19th century it could only have been composed to smear James Maybrick (if that was possible).The person was literate and talented.His original purpose failed since,if true,the Diary got lost in some way.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 18 January 2002 - 09:13 am
Hi John, Thanks for your reply. I'm looking forward to RJ's on the same question. Ok, so before RJ comes up with a similar reply, let's assume that the penman was given the complete written text and was left out of the research and composition process entirely and just wrote what he was told. Now I'll ask my question again as it relates to the person who did do the researching and composing. In other words, forget the penman for now. What I am trying, and still failing, to get an opinion about is whether the main researcher/composer ever saw the source of 'O costly...' himself, and if not what questions he would have asked the provider of the quote before gaily sticking it in with his own work (or, fair enough, in with the work he gave to the penman to transcribe). And if he did sensibly check the source as part of the process, would he have simply handed it back to his handler/placer, binding defect and all, with no concerns about the disposal or otherwise of this particular element of his forgery? Have a great weekend all. Love, Caz PS No more thoughts anyone on Peter Birchwood's post regarding the possible financial influences on the timing of Mike's actions during the second half of 1994? Does it all hold together nicely or are Paul Begg's questions and reservations justified?
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 18 January 2002 - 09:45 am
Hi Caz: I believe your PS contains the 5 million Euro question about the Diary, "Does it all hold together nicely?" I would have to say that none of the Anne/Mike/Feldy/Diary/Watch/Albert/Robbie story makes sense, either objectively or going by the testimony of the participants. As an aside, I went to see a special premier last night of the movie "Black Hawk Down" about the 1993 U.S. intervention in Somalia based on the book by Mark Bowden, a classmate of mine at Loyola College in Baltimore, Maryland. Mark said in remarks before the film show that he had begun researching the book as a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer because he felt confused by the U.S. intervention there and the scenes of dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. I can only say that having seen the movie--loud, violent, episodic, chaotic--I feel more confused! I feel the same about the Diary. The deeper you get into the Diary story the more confusing and chaotic it gets. All the best Chris
Author: Robert Smith Friday, 18 January 2002 - 12:35 pm
I appreciate the noticeably more civilised tone of Melvin Harris�s latest post (Ink: The Missing Factor). About half the space is devoted to an interesting essay on the behaviour of the components of ink under test. He explains that he neither sought nor received quantification of the amount of chloroacetamide in the diary ink from AFI, but two years later, on 7th May 1996, AFI did provide a quantification to Shirley, stating that monochloroacetamide �was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million�. The question is: In Melvin�s view, what is the relevance of this figure? If his answer is none, why did AFI think it would be useful information for Shirley? Moving on, we know from Alec Voller that 92.8% of the liquid Diamine Ink is water, and that 0.26% is chloroacetamide, ie 2600 parts per million. Remove the element of water, which will have evaporated in the dry ink, and the percentage of chloroacetamide in Diamine ink is 3.28% or 32,800 parts per million, ie more than 5,000 times greater than the amount determined by AFI in the dry diary ink. Even allowing for Melvin�s point that an undetermined amount of chloroacetamide had not dissolved out, this is one hell of a difference. Unless, for some technical reason, quantification was not possible, a great opportunity was missed to establish unequivocally whether or not the proportion of chloroacetamide found by AFI in the diary ink matched that in Diamine ink. Let us also not forget that Leeds University concluded there was no chloroacetamide in the diary ink. If it were in the diary ink in the same proportion as Diamine - 3.28% (without water) or 0.26% (in the complete formula), I think Leeds would have concluded very differently. Melvin remains silent on many of the issues he has been asked repeatedly to address, which, if answered without prevarication, could bring us nearer to understanding how and when the diary was composed. Key examples are: 1. Will Melvin and/or Alan Gray allow the Sphere volume to be examined by a book production expert? It is important to verify whether it could have fallen open at the Crashaw quote, when Mike first opened its pages, due to an excess of glue in the binding. Incidentally, is not the book still owned by Mike? 2. Will Melvin confirm, whether or not he believes Gerard Kane�s handwriting matches the diary�s handwriting? If he does, is he personally in favour of the handwriting sample being compared to the diary by a qualified document examiner, such as Sue Iremonger? 3. When did Alan Gray and/or Melvin first physically see the Sphere volume, and what happened to it during the months of September to December 1994. Further, can Melvin think of any rational explanation, why Mike failed to claim, that he had planted the Crashaw quote in the diary to prove his allegation in June 1994, that he had written the diary himself? Even in Melvin�s own account of events, there was no mention of any Sphere book by Mike to Alan Gray until August 1994, and even that was very vague. Melvin asked some questions of me. Why, he asks, did I not allow a test of Diamine ink on the paper. Would he tell me when he made the request? If he put this suggestion on the net prior to 2001, it would not have reached me, as I only became aware of this website last year. When I did read on the net of his complaint, I initially was reluctant to cause further deterioration to the diary, but on reflection, offered to allow Diamine ink to be tested on the diary paper, subject to some basic conditions. Then on 26th June 2001, I was told by Melvin that it was too late. If we are still arguing about the diary, ten years after it was offered by Mike to the Rupert Crew Agency, and could well do for another ten years, why is it too late? Melvin goes on to say: �these [tests] 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?� The answer is simple: Because the batch wasn�t offered to me by Melvin. It was retained for Melvin�s and Nick Warren�s use only. If I am wrong, point me to the letter or fax, dated, in which the ink was offered to me. Still on the same subject, Melvin tells us: �� in the case of the test letter written by Nick Warren, [Voller] has stated: �I agree that the [Diamine] ink of Nick�s letter has taken on a appearance similar to that of the diary, as regards the fading, bronzing.�� The test letter was written in 1995, and Voller�s remarks were apparently made in May 2001, upon examining a �colour photocopy� of the test letter, presumably also from around May 2001. If Voller could detect only �barely visible� bronzing, when he examined the diary in my office in October 1995, how could the bronzing he detected on the colour photocopy match the diary? And how do we make sense of the comment attributed to Voller that the ink on the test letter had �taken on an appearance similar to the diary�. As far as I know, Voller has not seen the diary since 1995, and in any case, the diary ink has not altered, since it first was shown to me in 1992. Would Melvin please send me a colour photocopy, so that I can make a comparison with the diary? Would Melvin confirm that the ink used for the test letter is the same ink as for the sample written by him, dated 25th October 1996, which Keith produced at the Bournemouth conference. Unlike the diary, this second sample had bronzed dramatically, as all those who compared the two could readily testify. It is utterly baffling, why in May 2001, Alec Voller should contradict his approved verbatim statement on 20th October 1995, when he pronounced the diary ink was not Diamine. His actual words were: �if this were Diamine Manuscript Ink of fairly recent manufacture, that is to say of the last twenty or thirty years, it would be blacker or more opaque than this�. Either Melvin has misquoted Alec Voller�s apparently changed opinion, or Mr Voller has done an abrupt U-turn. So please, Melvin, can you provide his actual words in writing (ie not a recollection from a phone conversation), so that we can reconcile the apparent contradiction. And what am I meant to make of the next accusation? �And why has no more been made to display a facsimile of the diary in Liverpool? This suggestion is years old and was approved of by everyone on this site when I first raised the matter here� Again, why was not the suggestion made to me? I am not telepathic. Not that I can see the point of displaying a facsimile in Liverpool. How? Where? With what access? Why can�t the people of Liverpool do what the rest of the world do, go out and buy a copy of Shirley�s book, with the facsimile in it? The hardback UK and USA editions even had a photographically reproduced facsimile of the original. Finally, Melvin invites us to be amazed that the ink of the last page of the diary (dated 3rd May 1889) looks the same as the ink on the first page from 1888. Could Melvin explain why he would expect the ink to vary in colour, if the diary were written on many occasions over the year in question? Wouldn�t it be rather more worrying, if it had altered in less than one year, but then remained constant for the next 113 years. A case of �heads you win, tails you lose�. Some straight, unequivocal answers by Melvin to my various questions would be greatly appreciated. Robert Smith
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 18 January 2002 - 12:56 pm
Hi Chris The whole story certainly is confusing � and mind numbingly so at times � but I would genuinely value your take on the question raised by Caz, namely whether or not the �he done it for money� hypothesis holds together. Cheers Paul
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 18 January 2002 - 01:07 pm
Hi, Robert: You wrote: . . . Melvin [Harris] invites us to be amazed that the ink of the last page of the diary (dated 3rd May 1889) looks the same as the ink on the first page from 1888. Could Melvin explain why he would expect the ink to vary in colour, if the diary were written on many occasions over the year in question? I too await an answer from Mr. Harris on this interesting question. However, if I may for a moment address this question, Robert, I should think that is a very good point made by Mr. Harris. If, as you and other Diary proponents would say, and as implied by the Diary narrative, the first page of the document was written in or around spring 1888 (possibly March 1888) and the last page over sixty pages later was written, signed, and dated on "the third of May 1889", one would expect that given that over a full year has supposedly passed, the penman would have by then exhausted the first batch of ink used a year ago and would by early May 1889 be on another batch of ink. Isn't it reasonable then of Melvin and/or other Diary "skeptics" to question why the color of the ink is not different on the last page of the Diary than it is on the first page? I believe Mr. Harris has raised a very valid question. Best regards Chris George
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 18 January 2002 - 01:58 pm
Hi Robert On the ink question, I have stated many times that my understanding of the issues involved is next to marginal and I don�t pretend to comprehend the half of what the debate is about, so it will probably come as no surprise when I say that I couldn�t fathom whether Melvin was saying the quantity of chloroacetamide in the �diary� ink couldn�t be compared to the Diamine formula because he didn�t ask for this to be done and because AFI therefore didn�t take the measurements that would have made such a comparison possible. Or whether Melvin was saying that such a comparison is beyond the available technology. My impression was that he repeatedly stated the former. And although I just about followed what he was saying about rates of evaporation or whatever, I, too, would have been interested in his opinion on whether the seemingly huge difference you cite falls within the bounds of normal expectation. Turning to the Sphere volume, I think I can throw some light on your question no.3. To take the last question first, namely why didn�t Mike mention the Sphere book to Harold Brough in June 1994, according to Melvin, Mike �said that he had held the book back when talking to the Liverpool people because they wanted everything for nothing. This, though, appears to be hogwash because Mike volunteered his confession to Harold Brough and when it was clear that Brough didn�t believe him he re-contacted him and freely provided further information. No money appears to have been offered or asked for at any time. Turning to what you describe as �very vague� references to to Sphere book in August 1994, Melvin said: Alan Gray now tells me that Barrett spoke of a book that was EVIDENCE a few days after he was engaged by him, in August 1994, but never went into any details. Gray never bothered to press for more information since it was not relevant to his brief at that time, or of secondary interest to him, since he is not a Ripperologist, just an ex-police detective with two sons still in the force. So he took little notice when Mike later spoke about papers and statements he had, together with this book, that would vindicate him. Mike never went into details, Alan Gray didn�t ask for any. Mike didn�t name the book or state its signficance. Interestingly, however, this information comes from a post to these Boards in 2000. I assume that when Melvin wrote �Alan Gray now* tells me that�* that the �now� referred to 2000. What was Alan Gray telling Melvin before 2000? Presumably just that Mike had named the book and its significance in the first week of September I guess. But what happened, I wonder, to the �papers and statements� Mike also had with that book? As for when Alan Gray and/or Melvin first clapped eyes on the Sphere book and where that book was between September and December 1994, according to Melvin, neither he nor Alan Gray saw the Sphere book before early December 1994. According to Melvin, citing Alan Gray, in the first week of September 1994 Mike enlarged Alan Gray�s brief to include finding a newspaper willing to pay for his confession. According to Melvin: Gray tried to interest the Sunday Times in the story and sent them some tapes of his talks with Mike. They hung on to these tapes for some time, but because Maurice Chittenden was tied up with complex stories, they rang me and asked if I would report back on the matter for them. Up until that date I had had no contact with Alan Gray or Mike Barrett. I explained to Gray that any newspaper would want to see the book in question and any other back-up material. He agreed and warned me that Mike was erratic and often made wild statements, but the book seemed to be a reality. And there were other things held by the solicitor. After a delay he finally persuaded Mike to withdraw the book from his solicitors and hand it over for safe keeping.� It is clear from the words �seemed to be a reality� that Alan Gray had not at that time seen the book. And obviously Melvin hadn�t either. So the earliest that it was seen was on 6th December 1994 when Mike handed it over at his solicitor�s office. I must admit to curiosity about why Alan Gray didn�t press to see the book and other crucial evidence in three months. And I�m intrigued to know why, if his conversation with Melvin was during November or even late October 1994, why Alan Gray told Melvin the book �seemed to be a reality�. Hadn�t Mike announced it�s reality to the world on 30th September? Some people may also wonder why in late October or November 1994 either of them were still interested in this book when it�s value at that time was presumably negligible? As to where the Sphere book had been , Mike stated it as his intention on 6th October to take the Sphere volume to his solicitor for safe keeping that afternoon. Where the Sphere book had been prior to that time depends on who you believe. It was in Mike�s attic, at his girlfriend Jenny�s home, sitting on Mike�s windowsill, or languishingly forlornly in a second-hand bookshop (though I await some sort of confirmation that Mike ever really did mention a second hand bookshop.) Or if we accept what Melvin has told us, it was already lodged with Mike�s solicitor and had been for quite some time prior to Mike�s confession to Harold Brough. Which returns us full circle to where we started. What would be interesting to know is 1. when Alan Gray first approached The Sunday Times. 2. when Maurice Chittenden asked Melvin to get involved on his behalf and precisely what Melvin�s brief was. 3. when Mike spoke to Alan Gray about the book and what exactly Alan Gray at that time said it was.
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 18 January 2002 - 02:06 pm
Hi Chris How big were ink bottles in Victorian times? And did people buy big bottles - as I recall was done in schools - from which inkwells and such like were topped up. And might not a businessman with offices have bought such bottles in bulk? Even if one large bottle was exhausted, another bottle from the same batch may have been available from the store cupboard. And this all presumes that the 'diary' wasn't kept somewhere with a bottle of ink and pen, meaning that all 63 pages were written with ink from the same bottle.
Author: John Hacker Friday, 18 January 2002 - 02:24 pm
Robert, You asked regarding the ink, "He explains that he neither sought nor received quantification of the amount of chloroacetamide in the diary ink from AFI, but two years later, on 7th May 1996, AFI did provide a quantification to Shirley, stating that monochloroacetamide �was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million�. The question is: In Melvin�s view, what is the relevance of this figure? If his answer is none, why did AFI think it would be useful information for Shirley?" I doubt that they did think that it would be useful. If the test was conducted in the way that Melvin described, (Ink samples attached to paper, placed in solvent for a period of time, then analyze what's left for presence of chloroacetamide .) then there would be no way to get the chloroacetamide content of the ink. There are simply too many variables: The ink samples were attached to paper and there was no firm measurement of the amount of ink vs. paper. Only a 10% estimate. We don't know how much ink there was. From that ink, some of the chloroacetamide would dissolve into the solvent. Not all of it, but some of it. (It's just like making tea, how much "tea" you get when you soak your leaves in the water depends on how long you leave it there, but you never get it all.) There is no way to determine what percentage would have transferred to the solvent. Given the methodology that Melvin described the statement that chloroactemaide "was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million" most likely refers to the chloroacetamide content of the solvent mixture that was used to extract the chloroactemaide for testing. NOT the chloroactemaide content of the ink. This in no way allows us to make any kind of dertermination as to the chloroacetamide level of the original ink samples. However I think it's safe to assume that the chloroacetamide content of the ink is considerably higher than the 6.5 per million figure that's been floating around. Many thanks to Peter Birchwood and Melvin Harris for clearing that up! Regards, John Hacker
Author: John Omlor Friday, 18 January 2002 - 05:32 pm
Man, I hate it when you guys get all sciencey on me. It seems clear to someone like me, whose brain obviously has a high evaporation rate, that tests with the ink on the diary paper need to be done by an independent and reliable party with all interested players observing. It seems obvious that its time to start over with the science guys and see what a fresh beginning might produce. I am not, however, filled with hope. Guys who work with numbers have often let me down in the past. I think they sense my animosity. Anyway, Caz's hanging question remains fascinating. Would the person who put the Crashaw quote in the book have to have seen the Sphere Guide first hand, or could he have just taken someone's word for it and let Mike or whoever keep the incriminating evidence? See, I can't figure out why the Sphere Guide was even still around. If I forged a document and thrust it on the public, my first instinct would be to clean up after myself and to get rid of anything that might link me or my co-conspirators to the book before I carried it into an agent's office and set the central scrutinizers upon it (fifty points for anyone who gets that reference). But weeks, months, and years go by and the Sphere Guide stays with Mike. That still seems very odd. Who commits a crime and then keeps the evidence of his guilt around just in case someone doubts that he committed it? I thought the plan was not be identified as the author. Or was the whole thing originally meant as some elaborate practical joke and did the perpetrators plan all along to someday jump out and yell "boo!" until the thing started bringing in cash and then guys in nice suits and designer sunglasses started chatting about film rights and then someone thought "Holy crap, we better let this thing ride if we can..."? I don't know. But I think Chris is right. The more you examine what has happened since 1994, the more confused it becomes. That's why I love it so. Now I need to do some chemistry of my own, and see if I can't raise my blood alcohol level a few points. Be good to each other, --John
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 18 January 2002 - 09:52 pm
Hi Paul: You might be right of course that the person who penned the Diary had office size vats of ink sufficient to keep the ink consistent for 63 pages of text for some fourteen months while using the ink to write other things, letters, accounts, billet doux, nasty notes to Lowry, etc., etc. Or could it be that it was a relatively small amount of ink in several bottles purchased in a retail store within the last twenty years sufficient to pen only this document over a relatively short period, say weeks rather than months, which might more reasonably explain the consistency of the ink on the opening page, page 1, and the final page, page 63? This is not to say that your scenario is impossible, Paul, although John Omlor is probably right that new tests need to done of the ink on different pages of the document, and analysis of such questions of whether the same nib was used throughout, and other facets which might help us reach some conclusions about this infuriating document. Best regards Chris George
Author: Michael Hopper Friday, 18 January 2002 - 11:12 pm
Chris There are ways of having enough ink to use on 60 or so pages than having a large bottle of the iron gall ink. Today, as in the past, it is possible to purchase iron gall ink as a dry powder and simply make your own "instant" ink by mixing it into warm water. Ink in this form was used by many travelers who wanted to keep the weight of their baggage down. Mike