|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 22 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 22 January 2002
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 04:32 am |        | Hi Chris
I was not suggesting that the ‘diary’ couldn’t have been penned over a short period in the 1990s with a bottle of recently purchased ink, only suggesting an answer to your question of how a document written over the course of a year could retain a consistent appearance throughout. And I don’t want to give the impression that I was referring to ‘office-sized vats’ of ink. I meant bottles, glazed earthenware in appearance and about the size of a wine bottle without the tapering neck, which were used in schools as late as the early 50s to top up inkwells. One bottle of such ink would have lasted well above a year if used by one person, especially if only used for private correspondence. And an office may have bought bottles in bulk – say half a dozen at a time - thus having a fairly liberal supply of such ink from the same batch. In short, this and other explanations, answer the question posed.
And frankly, even if different bottles of ink were used, I am not sure why the document wouldn’t have a consistent appearance. If the formulation between bottles didn’t change dramatically, why should the opening entry look distinctly different from the closing one?
I appreciate that older entries might change – bronze, for example - earlier than the later ones (though would a year really make any discernable difference?), but I am not sure why anyone thinks there would be any distinct difference between entries using different bottles of ink from the same manufacturer. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 05:39 am | | "What Peter B. has posted would only make sense if Anne was
working in partnership with Mike, and she plainly wasn't."
Please explain using only one side of the paper. Surely it's obvious that after the January 1994 separation and especially after the June 27th newspaper "exposee" there was no question of the partnership, which may have existed originally, being still in place. Confession through to recantation and then confession again seem to be motivated by the chasing of profit on the part of MB.
She (AB) may have been hiding from MB but at least up to the period of the confession, the issuance of the divorce notice and the "new provenance" discussions with Feldman, MB knew perfectly well where his wife was living: her address was written on the top of the letters she wrote to him. Did she move house? We must, I think, date the sundering of their partnership to the time when he confessed, which I believe may well have been a direct result of the legal charges which cut his royalties almost completely.
He supposedly cut his arm on her door rather than windows. It's silly to mention scenes "
'staged'
for the benefit of Feldman, Shirley and Robert?" when it's plain that this was caused by an acrimonious divorce dispute which may have had financial roots.
RJP is quite right: we do not have independent evidence that MB did any sort of search at Liverpool Library. Equally, saying that AB's "in my family..." provenance is supported by her father is completely wrong. If you read carefully the quotes from the Graham tapes you will see that as I have said on several occasions, Billy never identifies the diary as-we-know-it with something that he may have seen in a trunk. There is no proof that he ever saw it at any time.
Concerning the Sphere book you should be able to locate on the boards a copy of the appropriate pages which I scanned on several months ago.
Paul:
I think that you are wrong to draw the inference that MB had not heard about the £12,000 at the time of his supposed first week in December encounter with Anne. If you go to the Smith letter of 13th January you will see that it refers to Mike's of the 19th December. We don't know the exact date when MB learned about the Duo Crave payment of £12,000 but it must have been fairly close to the end of September if we assume he heard from his solicitors, unless of course he had been told even earlier by Shirley or Feldman which is not unlikely.
You are also wrong to say that "Mike appears to have
first heard about this[the £70,000] from Robert Smith in a letter dated
January 13th January 1995" As stated above, that letter refers to one from MB of the 19th December and also mentions a conversation between Smith and "Jenny" which from context predates that letter and quite clearly is to do with the £70,000. There is of course no indication that the movie deal was mentioned in any way to Mike pre-September and the indications are that it was probably sometime later in that month.
John:
Regarding the money, it is plain that the only persons who obviously profitted from the diary apart from the publishers/agents are: Shirley Harrison, Mike Barrett and Anne Graham. I think that we are safe in leaving Shirley out of this equation as she obviously came into the picture as a professional writer after the emergence of the diary. That leaves us with two people. Was another person involved? Why hasn't that person come forward? There must be only three possibilities: that person has some reason which we do not know about for not coming forward, that person is dead or that person does not exist.
Apart from the handwriting, the only other thing that might point us in the direction of possibilty one is that there is an indication of large payments made by MB to an unidentified source shortly after receipt of royalties. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:30 am | | Hi Peter,
You write:
"Was another person involved? Why hasn't that person come forward?"
For one of the three reasons you suggest, no doubt. But the question that bugs me isn't "Why hasn't that person come forward?" It's "Why was that person involved?" Why would that person participate in this risky little venture without being in the money loop and with no chance of attention or renown?
You begin to offer a possible answer in your last sentence:
"there is an indication of large payments made by MB to an unidentified source shortly after receipt of royalties."
Really? What precisely is this "indication?" How large were these payments? What do you mean "an unidentified source?" I don't recall having heard this juicy morsel before and the way you've phrased it here is seems awfully vague and less than completely or reliably established. But perhaps you can fill in the details for us?
Thanks,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:03 am | | The will of John McCarthy proves that his son was " ...the entertainer Steve McCarthy, who was the grandfather of the actress Kay Kendall.
Steve's real name was 'John Joseph McCarthy' and he was the executor of his father's will in 1934.
John McCarthy who lived at 10 Tregothnan Road, Clapham, described as a 'Lodging house keeper' died on 16th June 1934. Son, John Joseph McCarthy is described as a 'Retired Music Hall Artist', known on the stage as 'Steve McCarthy'".
So John McCarthy's son was a 'Music Hall Artist'? Hmmm, I wonder if he ever met Michael Maybrick? Never mind.
Sorry to interrupt your discussion on the ink, but I found the above quote on a discussion about John McCarthy and wanted to bring it to your attention.
Now regarding the ink and the rather fanciful theory that the last page of the diary should look different to the first page - I tend to agree with Paul Begg on this, there would be every opportunity for the diarist (Maybrick) to have enough ink of the same source to complete his diary. Are 'proven' diaries of the same period commonly found to have been written with more than one type of ink?
And of course our diarist gives us an explanation for his source of the ink when he says " ...should I replace the missing items?".
John/R.J. Just because the Sphere book in question is titled "English Poetry and Prose, 1540-1674" does not mean that a 'forger' could safely lift any line that he finds between it's covers and take it is read that the line would automatically come from that period. What would our forger do, for instance, if the author of the essay had been attempting a comparison between 16th/17th century poetry and modern day poetry? That would really have blown their masterpiece out of the water, wouldn't it? It would be too much of a gamble to take.
And John Hacker offers this priceless gem:
"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".
No, John, the figures given refer to the amount of chloroacetamide found in the ink - and that amount could quite easily have come from a 'control'. But at least your 'cup of tea' comparison raised a smile.
Cheers
Off for a brew
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:29 am | | Peter
I’m sure I am wrong to draw that inference, but nevertheless the inference could be drawn and that was all I was saying.
But it remains true doesn't it that we have no evidence that Mike knew about the £12,000 (or the £70,000) prior to the end of September 1994? And itn't it true, too, that as far as we know Mike learned about the money (from his solicitor) after he’d agreed to work for Shirley? Maybe even after 30th September?
And this would suggest that the film money wasn't a motive for Mike.
But if we assume that Mike found out about the film money before the last week in September 1994, how long 'before' do you think it was? Presumably not before the first week of September because Mike wouldn't then have extended Alan Gray’s brief would he? But even if he found out about it in the two weeks following the first week of September, that's okay because it allows for the film money to have changed Mike’s mind.
What bothers me, though, is why Mike decided to reveal the source of the quote.
You see, we are supposed to accept that Mike stated the Sphere books significance to Alan Gray in the first week of September 1994, had referred to it in vaguer terms but nevertheless as evidence to Alan Gray in August 1994, and to have lodged it with his solicitor for safekeeping sometime before he spoke to Harold Brough at the end of June 1994. If we believe all this, Mike clearly knew and understood the extreme importance of the book to his confession. Despite this, though, we're supposed to accept that he suddenly decided to throw this long-cherished and vital bit of evidence away for a kiss and a promise from the very people who'd just told him 'oops, sorry, we've just lost you £26,000'?
You know, I could buy the money hypothesis if it wasn’t for that Sphere book. I can see Mike trying to back both horses if he'd got nothing to lose. I just can't see him sticking his shirt on the horse that had just lost him his wardrobe.
Who knows, though. Maybe he did. Equally, maybe he didn't.
And what really bothers me is why Alan Gray continued to pursue a newspaper and why even as late as 6th December 1994 that book was important and why Alan Gray was telling Melvin it 'seemed' real when Mike had cited chapter and verse. And evidential value did anyone think it had post 30th September (bearing in mind that nobody knew about the binding defect at that time). Any additional details to throw some light into these murky corners would be appreciated.
And I must echo John's query about the large payments. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:35 am | | Peter,
"No, John, the figures given refer to the amount of chloroacetamide found in the ink - and that amount could quite easily have come from a 'control'."
I don't think so Peter. Not with the methodology they used. They didn't have an accurate measure of the ink that was used. (See the AFI report of Dec 20, 1994. It's up on the casebook.) Without knowing how much ink was in the sample it is absolutely impossible for them determine an accurate chloroactemaide content for the ink. If it were to refer to the ink content, 6.5 number could only be an approximation at best.
And it's clear from reading the report they were only looking to establish the presence of chloroactemaide. And they were not looking for it in the ink. It was in an acetone bath. The pieces of paper were soaked in the acetone, some of the chloroacetamide went into it. The acetone was used with gas-liquid chromotography to determine the presence of chloroacetamide. That's where it was "detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million".
However, I would certainly be cheerfully be willing to admit I was wrong if there's an explination of how the 6.5 number was arrived at in the AFI letter to Shirley Harrison. Is this letter documented anywhere? Or the letter she sent that they responded to? Neither of them appear to be in either of my copies of her book. I have the Hyperion hardcover and the Pocket paperback.
Every single time I've seen the 6.5 number quoted it's taken out of context. We only get something like "chloroacetamide ... was detected and determined at a level of 6.5 parts per million". I've never seen it as a complete sentance.
Can anyone please point me to the AFI letter to Shirley and/or the inquiry by Shirley to AFI? Please?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 12:23 pm | | Peter Wood seconded my opinion about a polygraph test.Paul Begg then wrote, 'A polygraph test isnt something you can just walk in off the street and do is it' ? He then went on to add,'And I seem to recall that the results arent 100% reliable either'. I will simply state that a polygraph test is no more difficult to obtain that certain ink tests. And it would appear that ink tests are not 100% reliable either as events have proven.At least a polygraph test would point us in the right direction which is more than be said for the ink tests which have only added to the confusion. If the questions asked were carefully chosen then the test would be be just as clean cut as these ink tests have proved to be!!!! Also we would not have to put up with such confusion and dribble as the ink tests have caused. This situation about the diary has now moved into something like it's 10th year on this casebook without any real progess being made. I for one am not impressed by this state of affairs neither it would seem are many other people.If the experts worked as hard as getting at the truth as they did at bickering,trying to obtain brownie points againest the oppostion on one-up-man-ship, and telling untruths, then we may get somewhere. This saga has proven many things but one certainly isnt who the fiorger was.If Melvin Harris was to state white was white then some individuals would argue that white was black. A blind man could see that personal vendetta's came into play several years ago on this subject and that they are still at play.This inter- ripper expert rivalry has contaminated the subject and does more harm than good. I say again that the blind have been leading the blind and I am starting to really question the term 'ripper expert' which has only to readily been used in conjunction with this subject. I have never agreed with it's use.I read somewhere that Shirley Harrison is a world renowned ripper expert!!!! Lets face it who are we kidding ourselves? I have never seen so many self appointed ink experts, ripper experts,forgery experts etc all gathered in one place before, all going nowhere I might add. Mr Joe public deserves a far better deal than the one at hand. I call for that offensive word 'expert' to be abolished in ripper circles who would like to second this motion ?
I feel sometimes that I am standing in a field up to my neck in Bull sh*t as far as that diary and this subject is involved. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 01:10 pm | | Ivor,
I doubt anyone here would object in the slightest to hooking the various principals (Anne, Mike, Albert) up to a polygraph machine and asking some hard questions. The problem is that there is no way to compel them to submit to a test, and I somehow doubt they'd be willing to do so.
If someone can talk them into it, I'd be glad to donate a few bucks to help cover the costs.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 02:42 pm | | | Hi John,In view of your constructive comments I would also follow your stand and throw some money in the pot. It would be a waste of time to get Mike to do a polygraph test.We know that he has lied like a trooper.He would break the machine it would not take the strain. If Anne Barrett refused to take a test then in my view this would bring further doubt upon her.After all a person with nothing to lose would be only too willing to show their critics that they have been telling the truth all along. She would do more harm than good to her case by refusing such an offer which is after all IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.The same would apply to Albert. Such action however would not be in the interests of those with something to lose ie, undeserved reputations, credibility, or monetary gains. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 03:20 pm | | Hi Ivor
My observations to Peter Wood were questions. And whilst I have seen laboratories advertising their services, I can’t say that I have ever seen anyone advertising polygraph testing. Maybe I haven’ been looking in the right places. But if you say they are as commonly available as laboratories that run tests on chemicals then I am quite prepared to accept that its true. But the point I was trying to make in a light hearted way was that we can’t just wander in with Mike or Anne and subject them to a test.
And as for the reliability of polygraph tests, you seemed to intimate that they would resolve things, but my point is that if they are not 100% reliable then they aren’t going to resolve anything at all. They’ll do the opposite and add further confusion. The last thing we need is more confusion.
That's all. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 05:10 pm | | Peter Wood,
If you look at the page from the Sphere Guide that contains the Crashaw quote, posted in the archives here, you'll see that it is clear that we are talking about two 17th Century poets.
I must run, as I'm late for a weekend of frivolity.
--John
PS: Peter writes: "And of course our diarist gives us an explanation for his source of the ink when he says ' ...should I replace the missing items?'.
Boy, creative reading is an art. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 07:04 pm | | Hi All,
Hi Ivor,
Is that why you walked out before Albert spoke on the Maybrick panel in Bournemouth? Because you didn't feel you'd be qualified to make any judgements about his honesty and character yourself? And you'd sooner that sort of thing was left to the experts with their polygraph machines? Good on you.
Hi Peter (Birchwood),
I too would like to know what you mean by 'there is an indication of large payments made by MB to an unidentified source shortly after receipt of royalties'.
When you say 'large', can you give some idea of the percentage of the total royalty sum?
You see, if Mike's contribution to the forgery was merely as handler/placer and provider of the Crashaw quote, as Melvin Harris claims, I would have thought the composer/penman between them would have expected the lion's share of the booty. Mind you, I suppose if they had only Mike's word for how much money the diary was making them all, they would have to accept whatever he gave them. And it got worse of course after he confessed.
It seems rather unlikely to me that a group of canny scouse villains would leave someone like Mike in charge of the pot.
Love,
Caz
PS Or maybe Mike was sending large donations to the Knotty Ash Cats' Home.  There had to be a KACH somewhere.  |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 07:40 pm | | Paul, All steps which have been taken as yet have confused the issue even further. The following questions have always been asked, "Is Anne Barrett telling the truth"? Has Albert Johnson been telling the truth? We know Mike Barrett has not been telling the truth. A polygraph test would give us the answers to such questions. That is the purpose of such a test to determine if the subject is telling the truth.The same old ground which was covered many years ago is still being covered today.It seems to be a case of one foot forward and five steps back.I believe that Albert Johnson and Anne Barrett should at least be asked if they are prepared to take a polygraph test.Nothing ventured is nothing gained if you catch my meaning.
This diary farce ( and that is exactly what it is ) has gone on for far too long and it is about time it was buried or resolved. The subject of the diary has been used as cover by some ripperologists as an exuse to undermine the work and character of others by shabby and underhanded methods. It has brought about inter-ripper rivalrys and has been the cause of much conflict.When one weighs the good it has caused againest the trouble, timewasting, and ill feeling it has generated then it is simply a case of no contest.The same old debates go on day after day, year in and year out. It is akin to watching a dog with a bone. Is this tiresome circus to carry on for another 10 years? So many experts, so little progress. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:28 pm | | | Caroline, I shall treat you and your remarks with the utter contemp they deserve.As I explained to you before on this casebook selling my books at the conference was more important to me than asking Mr Johnson questions.You have been well tagged and have just made my day. Because as it happens I said to my wife just after I posted that message, " I bet you Caroline Morris crawls out of the woodwork to make a comment about me not asking questions to Albert Johnston at the Conference, Although I have already stated to her why I did not" I told her you were quite the little opportunist and would jump at the chance. I can set my watch by you.As far as I am concerned Ally has got you pegged about right. And you dont know me at all for if you think I am not up to the task of asking people questions then you are a rather silly immature person. If I wanted to ask the man questions I would make sure it was on a one to one basis for a start.As for my judgements on the subject they were made well before the conference. As for your snide remarks keep them to yourself because they hold no interest to me.I have been on these boards long enough to know how your dodgy little mind works.Also you appear to think that everyone has to answer to you and that you have the right to know about everyones business.Well you are wrong. Also I see you have not got out of the habit of having a go at Melvin Harris just for the sake of it. He must really get up your nose. I know he thinks you are a waste of space not that he is the only one of course.I will say this for you I find you very persistent in making yourself looking foolish you little ripper groupie. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 05:09 am | | Ivor,
Had to smile at your comments.Thought the blood was going to fly out of the tube from your raised blood pressure,and ruptured artery.
Have to agree with you on the expert comments,though from a recent post the term expert has been replaced by the 'Authority' on the subject.
Even these 'Authorities' must by now be feeling embarrased by the continual reference to them by those who seem afraid to convey their own feelings or opinions.
Got to stop quickly,that blasted blood is pouring out and drenching me.Call yourself a doctor quickly,or better still one of the experts.
In humour,Harry. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 06:40 am | | | Hi Harry, We must put our heads together and come up with another word meaning 'Ripper Expert' or 'Ripper Authorities'.From the top of my head how about turning 'Ripper Expert' into 'Rip-off'. Or how about a 'rip-off expert' Must go have come over all faint must be from the loss of blood. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 06:48 pm | | Now for something completely different.
Peter, Do the men in Bolton still wear belts with braces to hold their trousers up? Or have they given up wearing trousers? Do they still wear shirts without collars? Do they still wear cloth caps and hob nail boots ? And do they still say, "Nay lad" and "Oh Lass" ? Do the women folk still put their hair in curlers and wrap their heads in scarfs ? Are all the women still known as either Florrie or Fanny? Do the Chinese restaurants still serve up dead dog on Friday and Saturday nights ? They still do at Guildford. Do the pubs still have sawdust down on the bare floorboards ? Or has it all changed since I was there last ? :-) PS,Who the hell was James Maybrick ? Did he live in Bolton? |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 07:38 pm | | I was looking through the net one night looking through pages on James Maybrick and i came across a page about mystical stuff like horrorscopes e.t.c and there were some guys on there saying that they did a sceance (excuse spelling) in liverpool and (not even knowing the story of the diary etc) said that the person heading the reading was transformed almost physically, they say that the face of the reader changed to a very very angry one, and the spirit or whatever that entered this reader claimed to be an outraged man naming himself as "James Maybrick" confessing that he never was the ripper and that he will never rest until his name is cleared of the whitechapel murders, and he also allegedly spoke of Battlecrease house.
after the spirit had left the body of the reader, they claim to have felt very bad stomach pain whils it was in them.
I am (sorry to all the profesionals on here) a believer in the diary (and not in spirits and such)and have been fascinated by it ever since a friend told me about the original tv programme on a uk tv station, All the other suspects just dont seem to hold the same excitment as "Sir Jim" the Guy in the Thames is the other closest theory "druitt"is it ? and if you look on the met police . gov site you`ll see whom they thought was the ripper from their files.
But this appearance at a sceance (on a page that i ended up on by mistake and the date of post was old too maybe 94 ? if i find it again i`ll enclose URL)) gave me a shudder, and had me thinking ... 1. the poor guy was murdered by his other half, which was bad enough (if he simply didnt just O.D) and 2. Now he is dead he`s being accused of the ripper killings. thats the only thing that gave me doubts about James, i felt sorry for him, but i just cant tear myself from the ripper being Maybrick.
All i can say is that this wasnt written on their page to get us all going into a frenzy, because it was just a weird hippy page about astrology, and all they was saying was that this particular sceance scared them to death nearly, and that after hearing that James lived at "Battlecrease" clicked the connection between them being in liverpool (even though its not called battlecrease anymore) unless Feldy or anyone else has bought it for nostalgia.
Let me just state also that there is so much bickering going on here that it makes me laugh "almost". Not even the police knew who the ripper was so it isnt like we will ever know (and i have read the ripper A-Z) even though its not a reading book, but a reference book for the other ripper books we read and feldy`s and harrisons and howells and skinner's. and there are ppl so sure they know all the answers to the half a jigsaw puzzle we have left, that they can actually argue peoples intelligence over it. Well if you know the answer guys you must tell all. Either way you look at it, it's chinese whispers. And there will be no trial and conviction so no joy. I feel none of us want to really find out, or the game will be over. its like when i finished reading the diary of ... by "Harrison" i was gagging for something new, i wanted more, more, more, i am now at this moment, trying NOT to finish the final chapter by "Feldman" which i happen to think is a great book and i cant quite gather what has happened since the to change Mr.Beggs mind but from what i`m reading he seems to be interested all down the line by Feldmans researchers discoveries. so if anyone can fill me in on whats happened between the day the book was written until today (or Mr,Begg please e-mail me if i have got this wrong?). I mean you do appear in the book as an ear for him to call on, and not once does he state you saying "look Paul its a forgery so leave me alone" if you know what i mean? but now Mr Begg seems to talk like he KNOWS its a forgery. And like Feldy says, if we looked hard enough at the diary with science you could probably find the ingredients to a big mac.
This is my theory ... we dont want to end this game of trying to find out who the ripper is, is the diary real, is it a forgery (if so the forger is an artist in his own right) its a great mind boggler, we all love it. it reminds me of the would Tyson beat Ali IF they had been the same age at the same time ? it causes great arguments between people with the same interests, and can cause rifts, but it will always be asked. (and Tyson would of mullered him by the way. Sorry Peter lol) Sorry for rambeling. Take care Guys. Tyler (newbie)x
P.S If it is a forgery ? i`d like to think that Maybe Brierley could of wrote it knowing what was about to happen in the maybrick household, to give Florence the best excuse for the murder of her Hubby, i mean nowadays that would be lesser sentence. Like a woman married to Bin Laden, and she kills him because of the death he has caused others. how much time would she get ? none!!! has anyone looked at his handwritting ???? |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 07:52 pm | | Can i just state that i`m not knocking Mr Begg, i respect him / you a great deal. And the thought that you appeared in the book at stages and you never told him to go away left me thinking that you had agreed with some of the findings. I mean from what i gather Mr Feldman only got into it to prove it a fake so he could get on with his documentary ? but from what he was seeing and finding the diary overtook him. Anyway Paul i loved your books too, and i would just like to know, who is your Suspect ? and you have to agree, the coincedences in the diary are plentyful, more so than all the excuses that its a fake. But like i said we dont really want to solve this puzzle do we???????????
Take care
Tee x
P.S. please be gentle. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:33 pm | | Hi Tee Vee
Paul Feldman actually got involved with the ‘diary’ because he was making a documentary about the Ripper. Elements within the ‘diary’ struck a chord with his own experiences and he accordingly began to give it more credence than had anyone else. This soon became a belief that it was genuine and he set out to prove it. His book is thus a personal account of the efforts he made, the reasoning he employed and the interpretations he reached. However, he was always aware that neither I nor Keith Skinner believed the ‘diary’ was genuine. We had made this abundantly clear in public and in private many times. I also hoped that it this was also clear from my introduction to Paul’s book. Nothing has happened to change my opinion. However, I was and remain unconvinced that Mike and Anne were responsible for forging it and I wondered if the ‘diary’ was an old forgery, the origins of which Mike was completely ignorant, or whether Mike and/or Anne were acting for an unknown Mr Big the Forger.
The origin of the ‘diary’ is what fascinates me and has always fascinated me. That’s also what Paul Feldman was obsessed by, except that he thought he knew its origin. A lot of people remain fascinated by the origin of the diary, whether they believe it to be genuine or a forgery. And many people, even though they believe the ‘diary’ was forged by Mike and/or Anne, would like to know how they did it. And that is fascinating too. How did someone, whoever it was, create something around which controversy has raged for a decade? But the one thing all these people have in common is a desire to examine the evidence, such as it is, to see what conclusion can be drawn.
Other people were and are satisfied that the ‘diary’ is a forgery. For them that’s all that matters. For them all the debate and analysis is a complete waste of time. Some don’t even understand the interest it has for others. Some even think the debate fosters the Maybrick myth. A few think the discussion purposefully fosters the myth. What distinguishes us is that some of us are interested in knowing where the ‘diary’ came from and others aren’t.
As for who I think the Ripper was, I have absolutely no idea. I think Anderson and Swanson thought they know and given their position I think they deserve to be given serious attention by researchers and not glibly dismissed. Unfortunately we don’t know what evidence they possessed against their suspect. Nor do we know the reliability of the eye-witness.
I hope that clarifies things a little. |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 04:51 am | | Paul,
I have a sneaking conviction that everyone interested in the Ripper saga would dearly love to know who wrote the diary.Perhaps their lack of interest in this thread,is because of their non belief in Maybrick being the killer.
There are now two mysteries to solve,and perhaps the present day one might appear the easiest .Most of those involved are presumed to be still living,so at least can be approached.Their participation of course cannot be forced,but Ivor's suggestion of a lie detector test is at least feasible.Maybe the right sort of persuasion would succeed in enticing one or more of the favoured suspects to come forward and take that test.
Whatever,I am sure that if it is a forgery,those responsible will one day step forward and claim responsibility.To pass on thinking that an imposter may someday lay claim to authorship,might be too much to bear. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:11 am | | | Perhaps someone can help me.Where can one find a discussion of Fowlers tonic and its use in those times?I read somewhere that arsenic is sometimes mixed with opium for an aphrodisiac.According to what I read about him, Maybrick took high levels of arsenic and was proud of it(doses that would be fatal to the average person).Opium was not a rare drug in those days.I am sure he took it for some other purpose than to achieve dry skin,a tingly feeling in the limbs and muscle pains. |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:32 am | | Thanks Paul for your comments, i feel like throwing this unfinished book in the bin ("The final chapter"), if as a lot of people are saying that its a lie basically. nothing on the Brierly thoughts ? Its very hard to turn your beliefs on and off. i did understand that you (Mr.Begg) beleived it to be a forgery when i read through your fine book that i carry in my bag everywhere the A - Z of ... but i read that completely before picking up "The Final Chapter" and like you so kindly cleared up, you never had your thoughts (corrupted) by assumations. I`ll re-read the introduction that you wrote in "The last chapter" (when i reach into my bin HA HA) Well for someone who`s a profesional author i do fully appreciate your reply. Thanks.
No thoughts on the sceance then ? if you know it werent Maybrick. sound spooky ? it sent a chill down my back as these guys had no clue why a Mr Maybrick had turned up and was pi**ed off to the max, if i find this URL is anyone interested in looking at it ? if so e-mail me so i know its worth looking for again.
I have just bought the "Letters from hell" book too and when i bought it a piece of card fell out of it and i was carrting it around in my hand whilst i was deciding to buy it (as it was quite pricey) and noticed some kind of impregnation on it, but thinking it was a thief chip i gave it to the shop assistant when i eventually decided to purchase this book, then after paying for it i noticed another woman bought a book and they took no chip from her book. Did i throw a part of the book away ? or was it a clue put in there by another ripper fan lol, it hurts now as i`ll never know lol lol It was probably a subliminal message from Jack the ripper, and i give it away to be tossed in the bin. I did at that point to notice "the final victim" by A "Graham" Barrett and thought there and then hmmmm good enough to write a book now, good enoough to write a book then, but with scientific foolery in mind, but i`m still not sure. so in her book she is basically writing about the same assumations that Mr Feldman came across ???? Or is this just following her interest in the subjest that was thrown into her life when the Diary was handed to her by her Dad / to Mike by Tony Devereux ??? i might have to buy that too as i seem to be buying books about lies lately ha ha (sorry Feldman and Harrison) I hope to still look at the Maybrick theory as i`m so thick in it at the moment, it would be hard to just lose that theory. I promise to read more into "Druitt" and "Ostrog" and "Tumblety" etc I`ve seen the "Sickert" paintings but not sure on him. But i`ll promise i`ll read more and come back, but i have a few to go first "The true Face of ..." and "The ripper legacy" and of course the "Letters from hell" so i have plenty to read already lol.
I also want the video of "the diary of ..." But it seems to be deleted. Is this the Warner story over again or is it just deleted cos its quite old (well you know what record companies etc are like! a week is a long time) I hope i show my humour in these posts, also i hope i am not upsetting people with my posts ? as you are all very knowledgable and that i have looked up to you all over the past years as i was getting into this on going saga, but never had the nerve to chip in with my 50p worth.
Thanks again Paul.
Tyler |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 11:33 am | | Ivor/Harry--You might have missed it last year, but Keith Skinner sent a few representative posts from these boards critical of the diary to Ms. Graham. [They were by me, Karoline Leach, and Peter Birchwood, if I remember correctly]. She met them with utter contempt and refused to reply. Martin Fido also posted an interesting story about trying to approach Anne Graham-- let's just say that she was less than enthusiastic about meeting someone skeptical about her story. So, frankly, the impression I get is that hell will freeze over and host the Winter Olympics before Ms. Graham would be willing to take a lie detector test. Or, as Anne Graham herself put it in the introduction to her book, she puts the task of defending the diary "in the capable hands of others." A rather sorry arrangement, it seems to me. Cheers, RP
PS. To anyone. The London Times transcript of the trial of Florie mentions a photograph of James Maybrick being taken on 19th November, 1888. Any information about that photograph or where it was taken? The New York Herald of the same time frame had several stories about Yapp, but I've been unable to find copies of them; a long shot, but these might clear up the question of whether or not she attended the trial with any of the locals. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:09 pm | | | Hi R.J. Thanks for that very interesting piece of information which I was not aware of.I did note a comment made by Martin Fido on the boards some time ago stating that Anne Graham would run out of a room if faced with a certain situation.It would appear that she cant take a lot of pressure and would flee the kitchen if the heat were turned up. Very interesting.What a thing to state though, "in the capable hands of others".A person without the courage of their convictions.I am convinced now that she would refuse a polygraph test. As they say, "The game is not over until the fat lady sings" and from where I am standing I cant hear any fat lady singing. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:26 pm | | Volare, woh oh!! Cantare, woh oh oh oh!!
Erm,
Nessum Dorma, Nessun Dorma.
Erm,
Barcelona, it was the first time that we met
Barcelona, I cannot forget the moment that she walked into the room she took my breath away.
Enough singing, the fat lady is tired.
And if anyone would care to pass my message on to Anne Graham - I will gladly even the balance of any potential meeting by being the diary 'believer' appointed to meet Anne. As I've said before, if you break Anne then you break the diary. But you won't break Anne because she is telling the truth.
So there.
Peter
P.s. Can anyone else see the face on the wall in the Mary Kelly crime scene photo? |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:32 pm | | Umm ...seems like some posts have been disappearing again. Ivor's dismissal of Caz's post has remained but mine, John Omlor's and Paul Begg's replies to Ivor have all gone. Hardly 'off the topic'. Maybe there are forces that we don't understand at work here - or maybe there is something a little too 'pc' for my taste going on inside my 'pc'.
Hmmm |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 07:29 pm | | | Hi Harry, Those under the spotlight in this matter have never had real pressure brought to bear on them. Up until now the people involved in this hoax have been wined and dined and spoilt by people who are not very experienced in the art of questioning criminals or getting at the truth..It has been a joke.Their experience in dealing with criminals is very limited or non existent. I dont think the situation was handled correctly from the start.If it had been then it would have been nipped in the bud.In short it was dealt with by amatuers out of their depth and not professionals as should have been the case and it got out of hand.At the start a few people could only see pounds, shillings, and pence signs they were oblivious to all else. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 04:33 am | | R.J./Ivor,
That has been the situation I know,and perhaps will remain so,but ever the optomist I think that one day someone will talk.They will want the world to know who the clever ones were.Or perhaps their circumstances will change,and the lure of money may again draw them forth to tell a different story.
H.Mann. |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 06:06 am | | | I still think Tyson would`ve beat Muhammed Ali HA HA (oh dear if i write HA HA one more time they`ll click that i wrote the diary) I`ll post again but i`m busy at this moment putting Al Queda files into a laptop that i`m going to distribute to a reporter in the middle east. HA HA damn! |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 06:55 am | | Hi Tee Vee
I'd be interested in the URL for the seances site if you can find it without too much trouble. Thanks. I'm not sure whether "The Diary..." video is still available, but it was released on DVD a last year by Beckmann Visual Publishing, Ramsey, Isle of Man.
www.beckmanngroup.co.uk
Email: beckman@enterprise.net
BECKMANN INTERNATIONAL
Meadow Court
West Street
Isle of Man IM8 1AE
Telephone: 01624 816585
Fax: 01624 816589
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 08:54 am | | Hi All,
Hi David,
I can't help you with the Fowlers tonic I'm afraid. But there is a suggestion that James Maybrick began taking arsenic as an alternative treatment for the malaria he contracted (quinine being the usual treatment but unsuitable for some sufferers), and subsequently became addicted to his 'medicine'. Like you, I remember reading that James ended up taking levels of arsenic that would be fatal to the average person. If this is true, the mystery is why they found so little in his body after death. One possibility is that he came off the arsenic. Another is that he wasn't taking nearly as much as has been thought. But either way it argues against Florie administering a fatal dose of arsenic herself, even if the intention was there and the attempt made.
Hi Peter (Wood),
To be fair, Ivor's original post was in response to my own concerning the polygraph idea, where I should have made my point much clearer and more carefully, so as not to cause offence. The posts that have been deleted were critical of the manner of Ivor's response rather than the content of it, and must have been deemed inappropriate to the basic argument here.
Anyway, I felt my point was an important one so it would not have been in my interests to write it for the purpose of causing raised blood pressure. Important points get lost that way in the ensuing insult-flinging.
Ivor now writes:
'Those under the spotlight in this matter have never had real pressure brought to bear on them.'
That may be so, but certainly in Albert's case, he didn't have to attend the Bournemouth conference and talk about his part in the watch affair. He could have kept a low profile but was happy to attend and face questions. And despite most people's attempts to link the diary's creation with Mike's attempts to make money from it, little is said when it comes to Albert's reluctance to make a penny out of his own artefact.
Now, I'd like to clarify my thinking on polygraph testing to make it absolutely clear why I think this would be running before we can walk.
Firstly, we'd have the devil's own job persuading a guilty person to take the test, as some have already said. But we would not be entitled to infer guilt from a refusal. How many innocent people would be willing to put their trust in the science and the 'experts' involved to come up with the right result? I don't know that I would. And didn't Colin Stagg pass a lie detector test over the murder of Rachel Nickell, for instance, and don't many people still regard him as her likely killer, despite the complete lack of forensic evidence against him, because he's the only suspect they've ever had?
Secondly, the questions would need to be carefully worked out beforehand. It wouldn't help us find out who did write the diary or when if we asked Anne "Do you know its origins?" and she simply answered "No". Or if we asked Albert "Do you think your brother could have been involved?" and he answered "No."
Thirdly, even if Anne or Albert were willing to put their faith in a polygraph test, and suitable questions put to them, would we really be any better off if the results indicated either was telling the truth? Wouldn't it be a case of "Well, people have been known to fool the machine", or "Perhaps the lies have been told so often and for so long that they have come to believe them"?
The point I was trying to make about the usefulness of forming opinions about the honesty and character of those involved, wherever and whenever the opportunity presents itself, is that there would at least be something between our preconceived ideas and the impersonal polygraph machine, to compare with both and help us to interpret the findings.
I don't think that's so very unreasonable.
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 11:40 am | | | Dear Caz;THANKS-That's what makes this Casebook so interesting.It is a place for discussion, scenario building, and just plain asininity.All is evident here.For instance when James Maybrick was dying, his last words were--"Bunny Bunny how could you do it? I did not think it of you"Did this mean that she confessed to the affair with Brierly about which he knew nothing?This would take away his motive for his murderous rampage.Did it mean that he accused her of poisoning him.Her reply was-"you silly old darling don't trouble your head about things. Did trhis mean sarcastically-'goodby you old fart i've done you in.All these interpretations have some validity.That's why it is amusing to see the adamant conclusions some come to--Jack the Ripper could not be a black magician, poet,artist,wideawake hat folks,sawdust peddlers, lovers etc.If you know all that then tell us so that we will believe it and we con go on to something else.Why, here in US people,scholars, are still arguing as to whether Roosevelt manipulated the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor so the USA could get in the war with the Axis. Seems like a case can be made either way.At this point in time JTR can become whatever the evidence we have warrents.Why not go down several paths at the same time.I look forward to reading Ivor's book on JTR and black magic sex power. Personally, it would be nice to know that James M. and Flory became reconciled, kissed and made up. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 01:31 pm | | Hi, David, Caz, et al.:
Here's an answer on Fowler's solution from a variety of internet sources:
In spite of the well-known toxic effects of arsenic, Fowler's solution, a weak (1%) solution of potassium arsenite, discovered in 1786, was the most widely used medication for a variety of illnesses for 150 years, including asthma, psoriasis, rheumatic fever, leukemia, fever, pain, and, as a mild tonic, for digestive disorders.
Hope this helps.
Chris
P.S. Hi, Peter "Pavarotti" Wood.... Let's see whom the fat lady sings for tonight, since it will all be going down at Old Trafford this evening between our two clubs! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 02:58 pm | | | A good con man convinces himself before he convinces others.That is what the game is all about.Anne Graham is not a good con person and she is worried about where all of this is going to lead. She has no bottle and that is going to be her downfall. As running before walking that is a joke. The walking has been going on for 10 years and it is about time the running started. It is better to do something than to sit on one's backside doing nothing.As I said before nothing ventured is nothing gained.Anne Graham is the weak link to go for and if enough pressure is brought to bear by the right type of people then she will break. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:48 pm | | Hi Chris
"Unfortunately" I am baby sitting tonight whilst wifey is out at college, and so am listening to the football on the radio - a decision I now regret as it sounds like an excellent game. Apparently we should have had two penalties and Steven Gerrard should have been sent off.
By the way it was Russell Watson, not Pavarotti - but I like them both!
On Maybrick I have nothing to say tonight - as none of the detractors have raised even a minor point of significance or interest. Can't you do better than this?
Peter. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:56 pm | | MCCORMICK REMINDERS MELVIN HARRIS
So Begg is once more bent on misrepresenting my investigation of McCormick. And Fido and Skinner have joined in this wretched game as well. Yet all three failed to see through McCormick’s hoaxes even though the proof was there in front of them. I even supplied Fido with the key references back in 1990. But no intelligent investigation resulted. So on this score they count as dismal failures. Is it that knowledge that makes them carp and distort? Are they bent on some sort of face-saving exercise? Is it far too galling for them to say ‘Well done’, as others have? Or are they just so vindictive that they all blindly misread my words?
So what did McCormick admit to? Read my pieces again. He accepted that ALL THE DUTTON MATERIAL WAS FAKED. ALL OF IT. UNDERSTAND? ALL OF IT. Any reasonable person will recognise that, when I wrote “He became philosophical about his exposure …” those words meant one thing only: that he ACCEPTED that he had been caught out. HIS EXPOSURE, not Dutton’s, not Le Quex’s. or anyone elses’, but HIS. Has the message struck home?
And on the specific question of the much-quoted poem, I wrote that he ; “WITHOUT ANY BLUSTER OR EQUIVOCATION ADMITTED THAT IT WAS A FAKE AND WAS INDEED INSPIRED BY THE SPICER STORY, A STORY THAT HE DISCOVERED IN A BUNDLE OF OLD PRESS CUTTINGS AND THEN USED IN CONSTRUCTING HIS BOOK.’ What could be clear than that?
But Begg, a man with no real experience of any complex investigations; a man who proved incapable of reading the Spicer story correctly back in 1994, a man bent on sneering, tries to make capital out of the Fleming hypothesis. Now, in investigating roguery I always work on the assumption that perhaps two of more people are behind the roguery in question. This allows the front-man to do a ‘cross-my-heart’ act and state that he did not write the piece; forge the painting, bury the statue; fake the hallmark and so on. In one such case, involving a hoax published as a first-person account, the real author denied having written it. He told the truth in one sense, since he had handed over his manuscript to a friend and asked him to revamp every sentence! In that way he sought to conceal his presentation style.
In another case I proved that a book of confessions said to have been privately published in 1925 was in fact a recent concoction and was the work of a husband and wife team.
In McCormick’s case I had already PROVED him to be a faker back in 1979 when my BBC research into his Kitchener book showed that the telling evidence he quoted was not authentic. So I approached him with a softly-softly touch to disarm him. I allowed him to condemn himself with his confident datings of the Dutton journals he claimed to have seen. (Read my complete piece on this). He fell into the trap and dated the crucial material back to a journal COMPLETED BEFORE 1900. As I have proved, that material used a false chronology that did not exist until 1930. (See the proof in my detailed past post).
The poem only came into the picture because Ripper writers had recklessly used it without questioning its origins. He found this most amusing; acknowledged it to be a fake, but said, ‘Of course I’m no poet.’ At that point his sly words led me to think he was hinting at a collaboration, so I asked, ‘Who WAS the poet?’ He said it was someone who bonded with him, and it was just a piece of poppy-c*ck. He then repeated, ‘it’s poppy-c*ck’ twice, with a strong emphasis on POPPY. In thinking this over I realised that for me, and for McCormick, the poppy was inexorably bound up with only one thing: FLANDERS fields. Now a native of Flanders is known as a Fleming. McCormack worked with a Fleming for years; Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond and a man who loved deception. This is just my guess at his meaning, but is probably correct. But, right guess or wrong, the material for the poem was supplied by McCormick, so whether he wrote a first draft, or contributed a line or two, or suggested the structure, is of no importance. HE ALONE is responsible for the creation and public existence of this fake.
His two-pronged lies EIGHT YEARS LATER count for nothing. In 1987, as his friend, Ted Bishop confirmed, McCormick was as sharp, as cunning and as aggressive as ever. And in that alert state he reluctantly accepted that he had been unmasked, and no further excuses were possible (see my earlier posts).
My attitude towards McCormick at that time was governed by the fact that I was waiting for more damning evidence before deciding on the final form of the relevant section of the TV programme. I had learned from a number of Russians close to Prince Serge Belloselski that he did not own a scrapbook and had never at any time shown any interest in the Ripper murders. I was assured that his daughter Marina would confirm this. I wrote to Marina in the US on 15th May 1987 and asked for this confirmation but it did not arrive before my projected confrontation with McCormick. So I went ahead with that prearranged interview, intending to return when I had heard from the US. But her reply did not arrive in time to make use of her first-hand knowledge in 1987. When it did arrive, the programme had been shelved. Had the reply been earlier then the polite, purely provisional formula offered him would have been withdrawn and he would have been branded as the multiple faker that he was.
He lied about the Ochrana Gazette; he lied about Belloselski’s conversation with him; he lied about Belloselski’s correspondence with LeQuex. Note this: Le Queux’s Ripper yarn did not emerge until 1923, but McCormick only met Belloselski by accident in the Rose and Crown in Tonbridge after 1946. thus he was asking people to believe that he actually met BY CHANCE the only person who had independent proof of the Pedachenko theory in the form of the “Gazette’s letters from Le Queux. On top of that McCormick was asking people to believe that the Prince had kept quiet about all this for over twenty years. As Marina Bellosekski said: “My father never owned a scrapbook and never mentioned Jack the Ripper. Mr McCormick’s story is just too ridiculous.”
Now Begg’s distortions are blatant. But how do we account for Fido’s limp absurdities in his Foreward to the recent ‘Letters from Hell’ book? He states that I “…formed the impression that McCormick had in essence confessed … that Eight little whores was not a genuine survival from 1888 …” Well, I have reprinted my original words in the third paragraph of this posting and in the original capitals. How can any sighted and honest reader take my clear, firm statement and twist it into a mere ‘impression’? And how can any honest commentator write of me that I “…came away persuaded that the Dutton ‘Chronicles’ were at least misquoted…? This is a sordid disregard for the truth, as is the following “…the more he [Harris] has been pressed for clarification on exactly how much McCormick explicitly admitted the more it has seemed that a good many of his own conclusions rest on highly subjective deductions from McCormick’s evasive replies.” On second thoughts this is not just disregard for the truth but is a lying piece of writing. No informed person has ever pressed for clarification. I have never once believed that Dutton was ‘misquoted’ since all the Dutton material can be shown to be faked and McCormick conceded that it WAS FAKED. My posts show that. How tiresome it is to have to keep repeating this in order to nullify the nonsense put out by lazy, trouble-making, twisters.
But Fido has once again trapped himself when he goes on to state of me “He suggested that McCormick might himself have placed the entries in the press which appeared to confirm that the ‘Chronicles’ existed at the time of Dutton’s death in 1935.” This is yet another of Fido’s grotesque inventions; an invention that was decisively repudiated by me years ago. It was first made by him in a letter to Mrs Harrison, which I replied to on 18th
January 1995. I told her that his ideas were baseless but benevolently suggested that he might be confusing me with someone else. Today, I wonder. His lies and distortions are now so many in number that I have to conclude that something odd is happening with his memory and with his ethics.
Keith Skinner has not openly joined the distorters in print, but by opting out of joining Stewart Evans in the McCormick section of the Letters book, he has allied himself with their position. This may seem a mystery to some but is no mystery that Fido and Skinner were taken in by bogus Dutton material. And no mystery that all three failed to penetrate the façade thrown up by McCormick. That façade was only finally shattered by my confrontation with him in 1987. But in 1990, despite my warnings, the A-Z could only record one small example of his duplicity. And yet I had earlier given Fido the key references that would have enabled HIM to have roundly exposed McCormick.
As I have already pointed out, McCormick’s book could have been exposed within a week of publication, if only the right questions had been asked. But it deceived for years. It was my initiative alone that finally killed his nonsense off, since it led to McCormick scrapping his plans to have the book reissued in 1988. This is something the three carefully forget to remember. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 03:34 pm | | Ally
If you do find the proper thread then please send this with it.
It's hard to type when you're hiding behind the settee out of sheer fright - lobbing pieces of fruit at the keyboard and hoping to hit the right keez, keyz, kezz, keys! There, got it!
To the point: Wow! I am frightened! I thought these discussions were supposed to take place in a spirit of trust and co-operation. Obviously not. Several people have just had their characters slated ...now could someone just remind me - who is Melvin Harris? |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 04:18 pm | | | Please-He has his bite, but he is a recognized researcher in this field. Unlike many of us he has put in the research hours along with some of the people he criticises.There are some though, down in Re-evaluation that are living examples of the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes".Lets sit back, pint in hand, or maybe something a little stronger and enjoy the whole spectrum of this undertaking.Who knows where it will lead. David Rhea |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:27 pm | | Wow.
I can't even remember the last time Martin Fido posted around here. But there he is again, cast as Satan's agent in another vitriolic missive by Melvin.
I'm sure Melvin’s a nice guy and all, and he has done more than his share of research and work on things, but he really ought to read his own rhetoric sometimes.
"A man bent on sneering"!? That one's priceless.
"Fido's limp absurdities..." Why limp? Is this a personal attack on Martin's, shall we say, stamina. Is this a mano-a-mano, mine's-harder-than-yours sort of thing? Has Melvin gone the Freudian route on us?
I wish I could come up with insults like these.
I have no idea what's true and what's not in the post above, or even what difference it all makes, except that Melvin seems to have recently read Keith and Stewart's Letters from Hell, complete with Martin's Foreword and he was obviously very pissed off by some the stuff in there and had to vent somewhere, so he came here.
Well, fair enough. This should be a place where angry authors can let off steam if they feel they've been mistreated in print. Although I'm not sure this is the best way to make others see your point of view.
In any case, I do think the ELW poem is probably a fake, though I am not as sure that the diary even uses the poem in any case. But I did love the fascinating "poppy-c*ck" -- poppy -- Flanders Field -- a fleming -- Ian Fleming word game. Something worthy of Mike Barrett himself.
"Poppy," by the way, was George Bush Sr.'s school nickname.
Perhaps there's a Fleming-Bush-trilateral commission-masonic conspiracy somewhere behind all this, including the diary!
Still shiverin'
--John |
|
|
|
|
