|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 04 February 2002
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:03 am |        | Dear Boss,
i seem to have missed plenty, whilst i was out working, but i said i`ll quit, and quit i will. the bitter squabbles seem to go on, whatever someone finds will be disposed of by believers in another campaigner. With the forensic science capabilities we have today we still get miscarriage`s of justice, in thos days the police couldn`t find there own hands. i mean didnt they pull Dr. Barnado in too ? i mean anyone was a potential killer, the same as when the yorkshire ripper was about, it was only cos he left a £5 note on the woman that he got caught (when he got pulled for having a dirty number plate). James Maybrick used to hang around with the Krays lol
"Yours Truly"
Tee |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:50 am | | Hi Tee Vee
What bitter squabbles are going on here? None that I can see. Just sorting out perspectives. We're all going out for a beer later. Honest. Aren't we John? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:30 am | | Hi Paul and Caz,
Caz,
I agree that the outsiders were not given the third option you mention. And I agree that the third possibility might not have provoked as much laughter as the other two. But that wasn't really my point in my thoughts above.
I was offering this partial and fragmented and incomplete set of outsider's perspectives and reactions, as I said originally, only as a vague sort of support for my own instinct, which is neither evidence nor even an argument.
And despite what Paul has just sketched out for us in admirable fashion, raising all the right questions, that instinct remains that Mike Barrett doesn't carry five completely random and unknown and historically obscure words into the Liverpool library and find their origin. Even the way Paul describes. And in fact the odds against him doing so, whether or not he turns them up in a book he also happens to have at home and might or might not remember at the time he has at home, still seem to me, from experience, astronomical.
And I'm not sure Paul is right about there not being very many books on literature in the library (I'd like to see that confirmed). But Mike is carrying a line of verse with him in any case. And he finds the line in a book of prose? Because it just happens to be a line of verse excerpted in the middle of a page of a prose essay and the book is somehow "on literature" and therefore a likely place to look? (Why wouldn't he have started by looking in books of poetry? How long would it have taken him to get through those? Why would he possibly have thought he'd find a line of verse faster in a book of prose essays (where it would be considerably less likely to appear) than in a book of verse? The whole things seems, well, just extraordinarily irrational and unlikely, even though it's Mike.
Of course, Paul, he "could" have done anything. I don't want to argue that the scenario is metaphysically impossible. That's why I offered all the disclaimers in my original post.
But my gut and the guts of a number of people who have a lot of experience with looking up literature in the library all tell me that the odds against this happening are overwhelming.
I was not telling my colleagues the whole story Caz. You are quite right. But I was making the point that two scenarios I did explain to them were laughable for very real though very different reasons. I can't say I don't share their initial reactions.
But as I said, I was just confessing a random thought, not offering an argument or evidence of anything. Of course, anything is possible and of course we don't know what happened.
But I do believe that either the Sphere Guide was somehow the source for this line of poetry being in the diary or the coincidences involved are beyond words.
And I do not know who put this line in the diary or how or why.
And I am content to let it stand there.
All the best,
--John
PS: Paul asks --
"We seem agreed for the moment that Mike's copy of the Sphere book furnished the diarist with the quote, but does Mike's ownership of the book mean that he knew prior to the end of September 1994 that it contained the quote?"
My answer -- no. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 10:07 am | | Hi John Hacker,
The line OCIOD is from a poem by the 17th Century British metaphysical poet Richard Crashaw (you remember these guys from school, Crashaw, Donne, Herbert, etc.).
The poem in question was one of Crashaw's reworkings of a sacred Latin Hymn. It is called The Mother of Sorrows. Although Crashaw is a major metaphysical poet these days and widely anthologized, this is not particularly one of his most oft-cited works. It is not commonly anthologized. It was published with the rest of Crashaw's sacred poems in 1649 and reprinted in 1652 and has been available ever since. It is a part of Crashaw's work that was most closely read by Catholic scholars. Crashaw, you might recall from school, was different from his fellow metaphysicals in that he was a particularly Catholic poet, with a particularly Italian and Latinate style and a Catholic influence. So it seems very, very odd that he would just pop into the head of the C of E man, James Maybrick, who did not seem to have any passion for literature even in his alleged diary personality in any case. The poet's work was available in one or two collected editions in Victorian Times, but he was considered rather obscure back then, and somewhat out of favor, even among scholars, and he and his work did not return to major status until the revival of the metaphysicals led by T.S. Eliot in the 1920's. So all in all Crashaw looks like a very odd choice. (You can find a discussion of just what Crashaw editions were available in Victorian times in a post on the Maybrick Diary board from Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 12:34 and more discussion of this work's availability in a post from Tuesday, May 08, 2001. You can also find some background on Crashaw's poetry in a post from Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 01:42 above.)
But the plot thickens.
It turns out that there is an essay on Crashaw and George Herbert by the scholar Christopher Ricks, in a collection of literary-critical essays called the Sphere Guide to Literature (this is a multi-volume set of scholarly essays on literature). In this essay Ricks just happens to cite The Mother of Sorrows and, yes, that's right, these two lines, in an excerpt of only three or four lines from the poem. There they are, in the middle of a page in Ricks's essay in a volume of the Sphere Guide.
And there they appear the correct way, with "O" instead of the "Oh" that's in the diary but with the same line break. The lines, by the way, come from in the middle of the poem.
And it gets more bizarre.
It turns out that Mike Barrett owns and has owned a copy of this very volume with this very essay with this very citation of these very lines. Allegedly, he acquired a set of these books, missing a couple of the volumes I think, when he was collecting items to sell for charity for something called the Hillsborough disaster in April of 1989.
So Mike had this book in April of 1989. He never did give it to the charity sale, but he claims he later gave it to the son of a friend of his who was preparing to take his school exams. He got it back and has allegedly lodged this volume with his lawyers, although they will not confirm to anyone, apparently, when this lodgment took place.
Don't you just love this case?
Now, there's a whole story about Mike being asked by Shirley to locate the source of this quote and he allegedly finding it in the Sphere Guide -- but, get this, not in his own copy but one at his local library.
Amazing coincidence, no?
Especially since he allegedly went to the library with only the quote in hand and no idea where to look or even what century or anything and found it in the middle of the Ricks essay in the very same book he had "forgotten" that he had at home (or that was then with his friend's son, or something like that).
Now, there are two popular versions of the story. One is that Mike knew all along the quote was in the Sphere Guide because he put the quote from there into the diary when he wrote the diary. The other is that Mike discovered somehow that the quote was in the Sphere Guide that he owned, either before talking to Shirley or afterwards, and that he then used this piece of fortunate knowledge in his "confession" to make it sound as if he'd known this all along because he'd put it in the diary.
Of course, if we assume that the quote got into the diary through Mike's Sphere Guide, this would place the diary's time of composition as definitely after the Hillsborough soccer stadium disaster of 1989 (when Mike got the book).
I don't think anyone has ever produced any evidence to suggest that he actually had the book anytime before 1989.
The bottom line, of course, is that we don't know anything for sure since we do not know exactly when Mike Barrett first saw the Crashaw quote in the Sphere Guide, before or after the spring of 1992, when he carried the diary that Tony had allegedly given him into Doreen Montgomery's office. If he didn't see it until after that day, then who did? Who knew it was in the Sphere Guide? And who put it into the diary? And is it even possible that the quote from Crashaw's poem got there some other way? Wouldn't this be a simply unbelievable coincidence, that the diary had a quote from a 17th century poet that just happened to be the same two lines that appear in a book owned by Mike Barrett, the man who went public with the diary?
I have long said that the Crashaw quote and its appearance in the Ricks essay is the only, single, solitary piece of material evidence we have that links Mike Barrett to the production of this diary. But it is not definitive of course, since we don't have any evidence as to when Mike first saw the quote in this book.
In any case, the stanza from which the "O costly intercourse..." lines are drawn is interesting when completed. Here it is:
"O costly intercourse
Of deaths, and worse,
Divided loves. While son and mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another;
Quick deaths that grow
And gather, as they come and goe:
His Nailes write swords in her, which soon her heart
Payes back, with more than their own smart;
Her Swords, still growing with his pain,
Turn Speares, and straight come home again."
The poem actually, like the Latin Hymn that was its source, is about the Holy Mother Mary's sharing of her Son's pain on the cross and the exchange of suffering between the Holy Mother and her Son as he sacrifices his life for Man's sins. It is a metaphysical conceit of nails growing into swords and then growing into spears as they are sent back and forth. It's almost obscene and blasphemous in an ahistorically Freudian sort of way  , but has little or nothing to do, as far as I can see, with anything Ripper related unless it is really, really, stretched.
No, I think someone just like the "intercourse/death" thing and went with it.
The best place to find the complete poem (and this stanza, by the way is from its middle) is in an edition of Crashaw's complete works. There are several now available.
Hope that helps,
--John
PS: In the page from the Sphere Guide that contains these lines and two others, the poem and poet are identified. You can see the page as a whole by going to a post from Peter R.A. Birchwood on "The Maybrick Diary" board from Monday, 26 February 2001 - 12:08 pm. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 11:15 am | | Hi John
I completely agree with your instinct. Wholeheartedly. Right down to the line. Couldn’t agree more. Except I can’t get round Mike not giving the book to Harold Brough. That doesn't seem to make sense. Which takes us to option (b), that he discovered the quote and realised its significance between confessing to Brough and the end of September. But this causes me a problem because I can’t see why Mike would have blown his one, solitary back up bit of evidence. Okay, maybe he knew about the projected film deals, though we don’t know that he did, but I’m being asked to accept that Mike, a whopping 26 grand down, offered the whiff of a share in a film deal (which I reckon he'd have been contractually entitled to anyway) by the people who he reckons done him out of his money anyway, would have encouraged him to throw away his one bit of supporting evidence at the very time he’d hired Alan Gray to do him a newspaper deal.
You see, going into the library and finding an obscure quote from an obscure poet may be cosmically unlikely, but Mike giving away his one bit of supposedly cherished evidence on little more than a lick and a promise seems monumentally unlikely too.
However, there is one option that seems to satisfy us both. That would be if at some point between confessing to Brough and ‘the library’ Mike found the quote in his own copy of the Sphere book. Not realising that he could use it as evidence that he’d forged the ‘diary’, Mike didn’t give it a second thought until Shirley asked him to find it. He then trotted along to the library, established that they had a copy of the book and went out to celebrate his good fortune with a whoop and a holler in the shape of a few beers and whisky chasers down the pub. Then he rang Martine and Shirley. Mike, the great researcher!
Except. Alan Gray says Mike told him about the Sphere book and its significance at the beginning of September 1994. If true, why would Mike have thrown away his one bit of…. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 11:22 am | | Hi Paul,
Yes. These are the more interesting questions. And I have no answers for them either.
Mike not producing the Sphere Guide during his confession to Brough makes no sense to me. And I have a hard time buying the "Mike was holding back in case there was more money" idea. It implies a deliberate care and caution that does not exactly seem consistent with his character or his behavior at the time.
But I think Mike knowing about the quote and not mentioning it to Brough (for whatever reason) is at least a bit more likely than the cold discovery in the library story. Though not much, I agree.
I do think it is certainly possible that Mike found the quote in the Sphere Guide he owned between the time he confessed and the time he staged the library story for Shirley and co.
I have no idea whether to believe what Alan says about when Mike first mentioned the book to him and I know that we don't know when the book was lodged.
So that clears up nothing.
My head hurts,
--John |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Hi John
Yourhead hurts! My head hurts and I can't keep up with your posts. Suddenly half an hour with those wacky, laugh-a-minute Beverly Hillbillies seems a good idea. Instead I am soon to go off and be thrashed by The Dragoon 'B', leaders in my local quiz league. But who knows, maybe the questions will favour the Loaves and we'll win. On such tensions and uncertainties is life based. |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 03:45 pm | | Paul B.
If it helps, the answer to question 7 in the sports section of the quiz was 'Gary Lineker'.
Now hear this: I've had a thought, and no - it didn't hurt.
Let us play the "Mike for forger" game for a minute.
'Mike' reads several books until he is consistently knowledgeable enough on the ripper and Maybrick cases to be able to keep the discussion going for ten years.
'Mike' also does enough research to know that after spending several months composing his masterpiece no-one will be able to prove that James Maybrick could not have been in London on 9 November 1888.
'Mike' nips over to the Christie archives at Wyoming.
'Mike' manages to get a look at previously unpublished documents without anyone noticing.
'Mike' lifts the Crashaw quote from the Sphere book.
Then, when 'Mike' is trying to prove the diary as genuine to Shirley, he shows her the Sphere book! And spins her the line about the library!
But wait a minute! 'Mike' was trying to prove the diary genuine, right? And after doing all that research, 'Mike' has a lapse, a moment where he just doesn't think straight.
The point I am trying to make is this: If Mike had lifted the quote from the Sphere guide and was trying to prove the diary genuine, why didn't he just nip down to Waterstone's and buy a copy of Crashaw's work, then show that to Shirley and say "You'll find it in here, I was flicking through some poetry books and found it in here"???
Cue John Omlor:
The best place to find the complete poem (and this stanza, by the way is from its middle) is in an edition of Crashaw's complete works. There are several now available.
Thanks John, you've just helped the good ship Genuine Diary. Not much. But enough.
Cheers
Peter
 |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:02 pm | | Hi Peter,
I'm not at all sure why the fact that you can nowadays order The Collected Works of Richard Crashaw advances the case for the diary's authenticity. Please explain.
In truth, the Crashaw poem in question would be more easily available via ordering now, thanks to the net and everything, than it would have been in Maybrick's day -- especially since there were only four or five editions of Crashaw's work published in the second half of the nineteenth century and most of those were in extremely limited private runs because he was, at that time, even more obscure than he is now.
Incidentally, the idea of James Maybrick, C of E merchant and Liverpool businessman casually citing this particular piece by Richard Crashaw in 1888/9 is every bit as outrageous, historically speaking, as the over-the-top "Mike-the-forger" fantasy you construct for us above (most of which would not have had to happen).
And, by the way, I certainly don't know, but I'd be very interested to find out if "Waterstone's" or any of your local bookshops have a copy of Crashaw's complete works. None of my local or major chain bookshops did. Not even my University bookstore did. I had to get it from the University library or else I would have had to order it on the net. (It would be interesting to find out if the Liverpool library even had one in the early 90's. I suppose they must have, but I'm certainly not sure.)
So the chances of anyone just running down to the corner and picking one up seem very small. Just as small, perhaps, as the chances of the 19th century James Maybrick having one in his home or knowing this particularly obscure line from this obscure Catholic 17th century poem and casually citing it. No, actually, the chances of the latter are even smaller, as my colleagues who specialized in the two literary periods in question all attested to when asked (when they were done laughing).
And then there's the fact that the line does just happen to appear in the book in the Barrett house --excerpted conveniently in the middle of page of a prose essay. Man, what luck.
One way or another, the page of the Sphere Guide that was in the Barrett house since 1989 (unless Peter has heard differently from Sphere) is the most likely source for this line in the diary.
As to Peter’s mythical "Mike, the forger…" It is of course an absurd scenario. Deliberately so.
But let's be clear.
First, I have never said Mike was the forger, either alone or with accomplices. I do not think there is anything like enough reliable material evidence to begin to make this case.
Mike's behavior raises problems, certainly. And the series of large cash payments in identical amounts recently cited by Peter Birchwood from Mike to someone or for something shortly after the first diary money arrived raises even more troublesome questions. And the Sphere Guide that contains the obscure Crashaw line is a piece (the only piece) of material evidence that links the Barrett's to the actual creation of the diary -- if only by location. But all of that is certainly not enough evidence to say yet that Mike and/or Anne are likely to be the forgers.
I don't think we have anywhere near enough evidence against either of them to claim they did it or that they likely did it.
That case still has to be carefully made and no one has completely made it.
But I am also not at all certain that the forgers who did create this document would have had to do everything Peter says Mike needs to have done. In fact, I am fairly sure they wouldn’t.
There is absolutely no reason to think the forgers would have ever had to see the Christie archives or anything unpublished. There is nothing at all in the diary that must be the result of having seen any of this stuff. Nothing. Anywhere.
And Peter says:
"'Mike' reads several books until he is consistently knowledgeable enough on the ripper and Maybrick cases to be able to keep the discussion going for ten years."
Actually this discussion has time and time again proven that it would have continued for ten years no matter what nonsense was in the diary short of a simply ahistorical reference (like the appearance of Mick Jagger) or a simple mistake about the crimes -- which the diary barely details or addresses in any case, and even there whenever anything seems to conflict with the record, the pro-diarists accuse the doctors and the Maybrick historians and the record of being wrong and the diary of being right anyway. Or they expand the possible meanings of the language in the diary to include whatever the record demands. So the forgers only had to remain vague enough to allow the desires of wanna-be readers to take over, and then, after the Feldmans and Woods are through translating the diary into their own wishes, the text is wrenched and rendered into a passable version of the record and the dialogue continues. The diarist would have had to do barely any work at all to make this possible. In fact, there would have had to have been more work done to get by the science than to get by the dream-readers.
And Peter doesn't even mention that one. I find it much harder to envision Mike solving the ink properties and pen nib problem to adequate satisfaction than I do seeing him writing these sixty-three pages of cheesy melodrama, clichéd artifice, pop psychology, vague references, and barely hinted details.
And finally, as to the possibility that Mike had a moment where he "just didn't think straight..."
Well, it's Mike were talking about, right?
Now I don't have any idea why he didn't mention the diary to Brough and did to Shirley despite wanting Brough to think he forged it and Shirley to think it was real. Neither action makes any sense. If Mike forged or help forge the diary, the Brough action is incomprehensible. Likewise, if Mike forged the diary, telling Shirley about the Sphere Guide also seems incomprehensible.
In fact, keeping the Sphere Guide around at all seems incomprehensible to me if Mike knew he had used it in the commission of a possible crime.
But I keep thinking..
it's Mike, dammit.
And I do believe that the Sphere Guide had to be the source for the line from Crashaw that appears in the diary and is excerpted in the Sphere Guide which happened to be in the Barrett house since 1989.
Who put it in the diary? I have no idea. But there is no reason at all, not a single piece of evidence whatsoever and no historical reason whatsoever anywhere in the world to think it was the real James Maybrick or anyone living in the 19th century.
So the mystery continues. I'm fine with that.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:14 pm | | "Dear Boss"
I had always understood, If not agreed with, the suggestion that the diary could`ve been written around the known facts surrounding Jack the ripper. without a full investigation of the text, it would be a reasonable observation. To create a sixty-three-page document around the lives of two different people (assuming the diary is not genuine) would not just take an enormous amount of skill, but an incredible amount of luck. James Maybrick, after all, was a businessman who travelled the country constantly. Any single piece of paper could of proved him to be in a different place from London at the time of the murders. Our "nest of forgers" however would need to investigate all those documents before they would know whether such a piece of paper existed. If it did, all their efforts, time and money would be a complete waste. Moreover if the idea had have been dreamt up, how confident would the "nest" be that they wouldn`t find such a document? Would YOU take the gamble? I`d rather play the lottery - theres a better chance of winning.
When Feldmans team went to the public record office to access the "Maybrick trial papers" they discovered they were almost the first to do so.
In 1985, the BBC, represented by "Roger Wilkes" and "Rob Rohrer, initiated enquiries into papers connected with the Maybrick case. They were informed that the relevant papers were being made available for inspection. The files were opened in December 1985, Only a handful of people had seen these remarkable documents since those incredible events in the late summer of 1889. And Mike Barrett had certainly not been there.
"Yours Truly"
Tee
Paul, have you shook it off yet ? |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:02 pm | | Dear Tee,
There was nothing in any of those unpublished documents that would have had to have been the source for anything in the diary. The diary contains no information that could only have come from unpublished documents. Not a single line it can be verified as true and at the same time as unavailable to the masses.
As to taking a chance on forging a diary of Maybrick's claiming he was the Ripper and risking it all on the possibility that Maybrick could have been somewhere else at murder time and the whole thing could explode in their face (well, maybe not, look at Prince Eddy after all)... I have argued exactly the same thing elsewhere on these boards and suggested that this is evidence that our forgers probably at least checked the contemporary records in the library -- especially the newspaper records of the time documenting such things in Liverpool society. But as Peter Birchwood has demonstrated, the number of actual, available written records of Maybrick's comings and goings is rather limited in fact and it would really figure to be, given his status and occupation (neither of which were particularly exceptional). Also, since Maybrick was a celebrated murder victim himself, much of this research would have already been done for the forgers by biographers and written into available books.
In any case, nothing that you have written above suggests in any way that this book is authentic or that it is anything but a forgery. And the book simply cannot be linked in any way whatsoever either to the real James Maybrick or even to the 19th century (every scientific test ever done on it has placed it's creation in the 20th), despite all the research done by Paul and Shirley and others and despite ten years of trying. And the handwriting still does not match the real James Maybrick's in any way, and the Crashaw line remains in the book and notably excerpted in the Sphere Guide which was in the Barrett house.
So, if you're saying the forgers did some serious research and also ran a serious risk by putting this thing out there, I agree with you.
If you are saying there were no forgers, well, of course, you have no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and the science places the book in the 20th century and the Crashaw line remains in the book and the book is not written in James Maybrick's handwriting and the book remains completely unlinked in any way whatsoever by anyone ever to the real James Maybrick or even to the proper century.
And therefore, if you are saying there were no forgers, there is no rational or valid reason whatsoever for me (or anyone) to agree with you.
But thanks for the thoughts,
--John |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 06:58 am | | Due to a bereavement yesterday I can't pay much attention to things for a day or two. However, regarding the bank account details of Mike Barrett, on the 12th May 1994 he was overdrawn by £3249. The next day a "Credit by Post" entry appears for £8886.38. Payments from his account follow: 17th May £500 and £1000, 19th May £1,000 23rd May £1000, 25th May £1000 and 27th May £1000. At the close of this banking period he was again overdrawn by about £284. He seems to have had a most accomodating bank manager. I do not at the moment know to whom these cheques were made.
Shirley sent me a message asking about these payments and I will copy this directly to her. She states that Mike bought a car for £5,000. This conflicts with my information that Mike did not at this time drive and that the car purchased was for a friend and cost about £500. Certainly, eight years ago £5,000 would have bought a very luxurious motor indeed and seems an unlikely sum. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:32 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter (B),
I'm so sorry to hear you had a bereavement.
But thanks for the additional details regarding Mike's finances.
Hi John (O),
We agree on the two options for the Crashaw quote:
1. Mike knew all along that his Sphere book had provided the quote for the diary's creation, sometime after April 1989 (and didn't say so to Harold Brough for whatever reason).
2. Mike found out after June 1994 that his Sphere book contained the quote (and told Alan Gray, possibly in early September 1994, and Shirley in early October).
You agreed with me over on another diary board that Mike's accusation, "I know you wrote the diary", in a private letter to Anne (written, I believe, in early 1996, but I can check), adds support to all the other indications that he really knew very little about the diary's actual creation.
What I can't get around is how 1. could be true, yet Mike still not know, some six years later, whether Anne wrote it or was even involved in the process. Certainly it's a huge stretch to have him passing the quote to Devereux and pals, as Melvin appears to believe, then years later start entertaining the idea that his wife might have been at the other end of this chain, taking the quote and writing it into the diary! But, as you say, it all comes back to what goes on in that mind of Mike's at any one time.
With 2. we have at least a rational explanation for Mike's accusation, if he really didn't know how the quote got into the diary. Did the penny drop that, if he didn't use his Sphere in its creation, Anne must have done? Would he have been as bowled over by the coincidence as the rest of us? That seems possible.
Then the first question that springs to mind is why would the user of the quote leave its source with the man chosen to place it?
And the second is what made Mike pick up his own Sphere book in search of the quote (which was by then apparently at Jenny's), any more than, as you say, he would pick up such a book in the library? If the argument is that it's a terribly unlikely choice for Mike to make anyway, what on earth would make him think he might have better luck finding the five words among the few books he owned himself (considering the laughable odds against him owning the quote twice and not knowing it, and his own acknowledgement that "they'll never believe this in a million years"), than looking through poetry, or books about poetry, in the library? Or is this where the binding defect comes into play? Did he find the quote in his own book, just about the time Shirley was asking him to look, not because he picked it up as a possible source (if, as you say, he wouldn't have thought it a likely source in the library, why would he think it was at home?), but by sheer accident, because as he happened to handle the volume for another reason, it fell open and Shirley's brief was accomplished?
We know Mike found it somehow, but which of these scenarios for 2. does not involve most of your odds against?
And I think Peter (W) has touched on a valid point. Once Mike does find the quote in his Sphere (if the library connection consists only of checking the book is available on the shelves), he knows it is from a poem by Crashaw. Armed with such details, his best bet would have been to look for a different source, an anthology if possible, before settling for the Sphere for his amazing - and unlikely - 'discovery'. Perhaps he did and couldn't find one. But certainly if the library staff had remembered him asking them for anything on Crashaw specifically, or asking for the Sphere volume by name, that would have been damning. If he was crafty enough to avoid any such pitfalls with the library (by looking by himself and hoping to find a copy of the book, which suggests he at least did go to the library around the right time), you'd think he'd have been even more careful not to let slip to Shirley that he'd also got the quote at home.
I agree with you that it's hard to imagine Mike getting to grips with the ink properties and pen nib problem, but I also find it almost impossible to see him writing any of 'these sixty-three pages of cheesy melodrama, clichéd artifice, pop psychology, vague references, and barely hinted details', as you describe them.
I see Mike putting his foot in it from the first line onwards. Maybe that's a little unfair. But he is thought to have been a heavy drinker back in 1989, when he was supposedly meeting Devereux and pals down the pub to plan their work, which he would later accuse Anne of doing for them.
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:51 am | | | How many of you before all this hoopla had read more than one or two poems of Richard Crashaw?Other than English majors how many of you ever heard of Richard Crashaw? |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:35 am | | | AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:01 pm | | Tee vee
He doesn't shake, he taps.
John, hi. You ask:
"I'm not at all sure why the fact that you can nowadays order The Collected Works of Richard Crashaw advances the case for the diary's authenticity. Please explain".
Simple. Caz has made the point, but I will elaborate it. If Mike had forged the diary and had used the Sphere guide as the source of the Crashaw quote, then surely he would have been at pains to keep the Sphere guide away from Shirley. If Mike had forged the diary, then once he understood the importance of the Crashaw quote he would have been much more likely to go and buy a book of Crashaw's work, using the scenario I describe above. By your own admission John, Crashaw is widely available.
But John, I must give you credit for something. You have done a creditable job of demolishing the "Mike for forger" theory, so much so that it becomes hard to see how Mike could have been the forger. At crucial stages, detailed by yourself and Paul Begg, Mike misses the chance to make a crucial statement or provide crucial evidence. Therefore, I think we agree, Mike was not the forger. In fact we can go further, Mike had no role whatsoever in the creation of the diary.
And thus, the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Sphere guide in Mike's house is not evidence of anything, because realistically speaking Mike is the only person who would have read it. It is of course possible that Anne could have read the Sphere guide and inserted the Crashaw quote into the diary behind her husband's back, but I don't think anyone truly believes Anne created the diary anymore than they think Mike did.
So, if Mike didn't forge the diary and Mike didn't let anyone else use the Sphere guide for the source of the Crashaw quote, then it matters not that the Crashaw quote was in Mike's house when the diary went to London (and you still have to prove that it was anyway). It is simply a coincidence
And that's that. Wonder how Paul Begg got on at his sports quiz?
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:43 pm | | Hi Peter,
Sometimes I think you just deliberately misread. But perhaps that is giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You say:
"Therefore, I think we agree, Mike was not the forger."
Where or when have I ever said such a thing?
I have analyzed the insufficiencies of the case against Mike just as I have analyzed the utter insufficiencies in the case for the diary's authenticity. But I have never said Mike is not the forger. And there is no way you or anyone else around here can say such a thing at this time unless they are simply ignoring facts and data and expressing their own desperate desires. There is not nearly enough evidence to say that Mike is not the forger, nor is there enough evidence to say that he is. He remains a suspect, even a very important suspect in the case, despite his contradictory behavior and the problems that it poses for the case against him, which still lacks a serious amount of credible evidence.
I know you can read, Peter. I just wish you'd do so a bit more carefully.
But perhaps this explains your penchant for Paul Feldman's casual and desire-filled reading style as well.
And the following is simply and mind-bendingly nonsense:
"And thus, the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Sphere guide in Mike's house is not evidence of anything."
That you could seriously write this reveals either that you are unaware of what constitutes evidence or that you are deliberately writing simple provocations for their own sake without regard to the sense of your claims.
Of course the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the Sphere book is material evidence. The same line that is excerpted in the diary, from an obscure 17th century poet and from an obscure poem of his, also appears conveniently excerpted at precisely the same line in a prose essay in a book in the house of the only people ever known to have owned this book. And you say it's not evidence!? Man, if I ever commit a crime, I want you as the investigating officer.
And to claim that the appearance of this obscure and excerpted line in both the Sphere Book in Mike's house since 1989 and in the diary is "simply a coincidence" is a conclusion not even worthy of Feldman. I have to think you are only kidding at this point.
Believe me, Peter, it is far, far more likely, historically speaking, that the appearance of a line from the middle of Crashaw's The Mother of Sorrows appears in the diary because it was taken from a page where it was similarly excerpted in the Sphere Guide that was in the house of the only people ever known to have owned the diary than it is that the 19th century C of E businessman James Maybrick put it there. And I have a slew of experts on the periods and the history in question who will confirm that (if I can ever get them to stop laughing).
And you give no reason in your post why Anne could not have been the supplier of this line or why anyone else involved in the forgery and who hung with Mike could not have been the supplier of this line.
In all, your post above is one of your thinnest and least carefully argued, Peter -- settling as it does, for a "well nobody truly believes Anne could have..." and "Mike is the only person who could have read it" nonsense and "its just a coincidence" conclusion.
None if this is careful analysis, Peter. It's just you expressing what you wish to be the truth. It's nice and all, but it tells us nothing and it doesn't make the Crashaw quote's appearance in both the diary and Sphere Guide in Mike's house go away.
And I am not at all convinced that "if Mike had forged the diary, then once he understood the importance of the Crashaw quote he would have been much more likely to go and buy a book of Crashaw's work, using the scenario I describe above."
First, I'm am not at all sure Mike would know where to get a copy of Crashaw's complete works and he wouldn't have found this poem in an anthology and I doubt his local bookshop would have had one. Second, Mike already had a source for the quote. I'm not at all sure he would have looked for or tried to find another one.
And finally, any sentence that is based on the premise that Mike "would have done" something is a fantasy, especially since we're talking about Mike, about whom we know only one thing for certain -- he does not act in a logical or rational manner.
So you have said nothing, Peter. And this post above is actually something of a disappointment. Perhaps it's the fact that the Crashaw quote is the only real material evidence that links the diary to the Barrett house that has made it hard for you to make it vanish via your usual verbal sleight of hand. Or perhaps you were just tired. But there is still no reason at all to suspect that the Sphere Guide was not the source for OCIOD.
I'll bet fifty bucks it was.
All the best,
--John
PS: You write -- "At crucial stages, detailed by yourself and Paul Begg, Mike misses the chance to make a crucial statement or provide crucial evidence."
This, by itself, is not compelling evidence that Mike was not the forger. It is consistent with Mike's behavior throughout this entire decade, apparently. It may also just be Mike being Mike. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:50 pm | | John Omlor,
Many thanks for the information!
The quote and the Sphere Guide have been debated (seemingly) endlessly, but I was never really sure what the poem it had came from was about or if there was any significance to the quote itself. Thanks for the excerpt and interpertation. That's quite the little poem he's got going there. I think I'll leave the works of Crashaw for others to enjoy.
I agree with you that Mike's "Library Discovery" story is utterly broken. Given the vast amount of books to look through that could potentially contain the quote, it's almost beyond belief that he would find it at the library in the Sphere guide by chance. And that he would not recognize that they were very same books he had seems almost as far fetched to me.
There's three pretty big improbable's to swallow here. "Maybrick" somehow came across the Crashaw line. Mike finds it randomly in an unrelated book while at the library. Mike forgets he has a copy of the same book at home. Right...
Ah well. It's par for the course with the diary debate I fear. You need to believe a heck of a lot more than 7 impossible things before breakfast before the diary starts to look plausible.
Again, many thanks!
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:41 am | | Hi All,
I agree it's almost beyond belief.
And I can't do any better than I've already done to examine the whole story, putting the Crashaw incident in context, to show how 'almost beyond belief' could prove less so one day.
Perhaps we'll get the final sp sometime on this 'vast amount of books' Mike would have been faced with at the library.
But without using anything as evidence, or even trying to make a fresh argument here, I'll match John's fifty bucks and raise him fifty that the Sphere turns out to be an amazing - nay, risible - red herring, or cannot be proved otherwise.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:46 am | | Hi All
Little bunnies scampering merrily in the green fields, the bluebirds twittering in the treetops, Mr benevolent sun sending his beams to warm and hearten a happy world, and there we have Mike stumbling across the Crashaw quote in the Sphere guide at the library and laughing, a merry twinkle in his eye, as he realised that he had a copy of that very book in the little gingerbread cottage he was pleased to call home. I dunno, but it seems such a simple world. ‘But this ain’t Kansas, Toto,’ and the suddenly hard reality crashes in with all the force of a large anvil landing on one’s big toe. Yet as much as it is a strange fantasy world notion, Mike finding the quote in the library and then guilelessly announcing that he had a copy of that very book at home does seem to fit Mike’s behaviour better than either of the remaining alternatives, both of which raise problems.
But let’s suppose that Mike did not find the quote at the library. That leaves us with two choices:
(a) Mike all along knew the Sphere book contained the quote.
(b) Mike discovered the quote in the Sphere book sometime during the middle months of 1994.
As we’ve noted, it seems inconceivable that Mike wouldn’t have produced the quote when he confessed to Harold Brough. This leaves us with the conclusion that Mike found the quote between 24th June 1994 (when he confessed) and 20th September 1994 (when he announced his ‘discovery’).
We are told that Mike told Alan Gray ‘of a book that was EVIDENCE a few days after he was engaged by him, in August 1994’ and that at the beginning of September he identified the book and it’s significance.
If this is the case then the problem we faced with is explaining why Mike, recognising the quote and appreciating the significance of the Sphere book as evidence that he’d forged the ‘diary’, and having at the beginning of September 1994 hired private detective Alan Gray to find a newspaper willing to pay for his confession, within a couple of weeks publicly declares that he had found the quote through research at the library, thus chucking his ‘I dunnit’ confession into the shredder.
Why would Mike have thrown away the one piece of evidence he had?
But Mike then apparently guilelessly announces that coincidentally he happens to have the very source at home.
Why would he have done that? What possible reason could he have had? If he wanted to deflect suspicion that he was the forger, admitting to ownership of the book wouldn’t have assisted him. If he wanted people to believe that he’s found the quote through hard research work, admitting to ownership of the book wouldn’t have assisted him. Is there any benefit to Mike that anyone can see for Mike having announced that he owned a copy of the Sphere book?
There isn’t any real problem with Mike finding the quote between 24th June 1994 and 20th September 1994. The problem comes with whether or not he recognised its significance – by which we mean that he realised that his possession of the book linked him to the forgery and was evidence supporting his claim to have forged the ‘diary’.
The knowledge that Mike had left the book, plus some other things, with the solicitor, came to Alan Gray from one of the people in that solicitor's office.’ (Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 29 October 2000 - 07:08 pm
“AMNESIA?” Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through October 31, 2000)
According to Melvin Harris, Alan Gray appears to have first heard about the book from someone employeed in Mike’s solicitor’s office. This seems to directly contradict what we are told elsewhere that it was Mike who first told Alan Gray about a book a few days after hiring him on 14 August 1994. The source for this is again Melvin Harris:- 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 claimed they were known to his solicitor. He later said they were with his solicitor. (Melvin Harris Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 06:31 pm "DATES?" Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through November 04, 2000)
These two statements can be reconciled if we assume that the employee told Alan Gray about the book between Mike hiring him and Mike mentioning the book himself. But what was Alan Gray actually told? By his own admission he didn't pay much attention to what Mike told him in August 1994 because it was 'not relevant to his brief at that time'.
Interestingly, though, Melvin, writing here in November 2000, says ‘Alan Gray now tells me’ (my emphasis). Does this mean that it wasn’t until November 2000 that Alan Gray told Melvin about Mike mentioning the Sphere book in August and September 1994?
I ask because I wonder if it is possible that Alan Gray recalled the wrong month. Could Mike have told him about the book and its significance in the first week of October 1994, not September?
And what do we understand to be meant by the words Mike claimed they were known to his solicitor. He later said they were with his solicitor.
How much later did Mike say this?
The thing is, if the Sphere book was with Mike’s girlfriend until Mike lodged it with his solicitor on 6th October 1994, nobody at Mike’s solicitor’s could have told Alan Gray about it until on or after 6th October. And if knowledge of the book first came to Alan Gray from that employee, Alan Gray did not hear of it from Mike or anyone else prior to that date.
Any thoughts or clarification would help. |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 10:05 am | | Caz,
You're on. If the page from Ricks's essay in the Sphere Guide one day turns out to be the source for the line of Crashaw in the diary, you can send the money through the mail.
If it turns out not to be the the source, I'll happily send you the funds.
I like my chances.
Paul,
Nice work, here. I'll have to read it again later before commenting.
Bye all,
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:49 pm | | All,
Just for yucks I did a few quick web searches via Google to see how rare the OCIOD quote was.
First, I tried "chloroacetamide", 935 hits.
Next, I tried "James Maybrick", 607 hits.
Last, I tried "costly intercourse of" to eliminate the "o/oh", and the "death/deaths" questions. 3 hits. 2 here, one at the Cloak and Dagger club.
This is not a common quotation.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:30 pm | | "First, I'm am not at all sure Mike would know where to get a copy of Crashaw's complete works and he wouldn't have found this poem in an anthology and I doubt his local bookshop would have had one. Second, Mike already had a source for the quote. I'm not at all sure he would have looked for or tried to find another one".
But John, if Mike was trying hard to prove the diary genuine ( he was at that point in time) then it would have made sense for Mike to look for another source for OCIOD, and produce that source to Shirley. Or Mike could have just played dumbe and said "Sorry love, it means nothing to me".
Paul Begg has all the right arguments for why Mike must seriously be discounted as the supplier of OCIOD. Mike does things the wrong way round with Brough and Shirley, telling Shirley about the Sphere guide when trying to prove the diary genuine and not telling Brough about it when trying to prove that he forged the diary.
It is inconceivable that Mike would not have told Brough about the Sphere guide and OCIOD if he had known it's significance. And that is why, if Mike is not the supplier of OCIOD, and if the books really were locked up in Mike's attic where no one else (including Anne) could have casually flicked through them and settled on OCIOD, the appearance of OCIOD in both the diary and the Sphere guide is nothing more than a red herring.
There are other possibilities, which include Mike discovering the quote somewhere else and making up the library story for God only knows what reason ( Name me three artists who have recorded songs titled 'God only knows'). But none of the other 'possibilities' in any way explains why Mike would have sat on the OCIOD quote when attempting to convince Brough that he had forged the diary. In fact, at that time, Mike wasn't even able to answer even the most basic of questions that our Lord Paul Feldman put to him about the diary and it's composition.
Clearly Mike didn't supply OCIOD.
Clearly it is stretching things to think that any of his mates went up to Mike's attics, flicked through the Sphere guide and digested OCIOD.
Clearly, the appearance of the quote in Mike's home at the same time as being in the diary is a sad old coincidence.
And don't forget that if the Sphere guide had been lodged with Mike's solicitor then Richard Bark Jones would definitely not have made his statement about being able to state that Mike had lied about forging the diary.
So argue OCIOD until the cows come home if you wish, because it ain't gonna get you anywhere.
And John, lets make it a little more interesting. Put your fifty bucks back in your wallet and we'll make the bet for the most expensive bottle of wine on the list in the restaurant of the hotel that hosts the next JTR conference ...in England!
One last point for John. You made an observation a while ago that you thought the OCIOD quote looked like it had been inserted between two lines already written. On close inspection I have to agree with you, it does look that way. But how does that advance your "forgery theory"? Surely Maybrick could have inserted it there?
Cheers
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:04 pm | | Hi Peter,
Again, you spend much of your post trying to tell me what Mike "would have done" or "should have done." This, Peter, is not only a losing proposition, it's not a valid argument and it is fair evidence of nothing, especially considering it's Mike you're talking about.
At another point in time, we can get into the specifics of Mike's finances, and when exactly he was told that there was no more money coming from the diary and what he did then and when he was told there might be more money coming and what he did differently then and when he got mad at Paul Feldman and what he did then and when he got raging drunk and depressed about his marriage and what he did then and when he started taking in money from the diary and subsequently started paying out large, identical sums and what he did then and what he told people then and all of those things.
But just telling me "Mike should have" or "Mike would have" is utterly pointless unless you know all of the facts for each given time Mike uttered a sentence, and you do not.
The fact that Mike did things the wrong way around with Brough and Harrison in no way proves that the Crashaw quote did not come from the Sphere Guide. And I think Paul Begg would agree with me here.
And nothing you have said in any way indicates that the Sphere Guide is still not the most likely source, indeed the only likely source, for this particular line of poetry.
So let me tell everyone out there a story.
Hello everybody. I want to tell you a little story. A while back a diary was found. It claimed to be the diary of James Maybrick, confessing to being Jack the Ripper. It was brought to the public's attention by a Liverpool man named Mike Barrett, who said that he got it from a mate in a pub.
But here's a strange thing. In the middle of the diary, allegedly by a 19th century, C of E, Liverpool cotton merchant and businessman, there is a line of verse. It is unidentified.
Well, it turns out to be an obscure line of verse from the 17th century Catholic, metaphysical poet Richard Crashaw -- a line from one his non-anthologized Catholic translations of a sacred Latin hymn. Crashaw was even more of an obscure figure in the 19th century than he is today and this poem would have been even less well known that it is today, because of the extremely limited publishing of his work that took place in the second half of the 19th century and because of its limited readership at that time (before the work of Eliot returns it to the canon in the 1920's). So it struck many qualified readers, especially experts in the history and literature of both periods, as extraordinarily odd and extremely unlikely to have been put there by anyone like James Maybrick in 1889.
But wait, the story gets much, much better. Yes, the line is very obscure, even today. It is not included in most selections of Crashaw's work collected in anthologies, even anthologies of 17th century poetry, even anthologies of just the work of Donne, Herbert, and Crashaw. And copies of Crashaw's collected works rarely appear for sale in local bookstores or anywhere outside of University campuses and the internet.
But there is one place, oddly enough, where this particular line does appear. When Christopher Ricks, the literature scholar from England wrote an essay on the poetry of George Herbert for inclusion in a multi-volume Guide to Literature, he chose to quote this very line from this obscure poem right in the middle of his essay.
Strange, huh?
It gets better.
This book, which would not normally be found in private homes of anyone other than literature scholars, with this very essay, with this very obscure line excerpted right in the middle of it, turns out to be, guess where?
Of all places...
That's right, in the home of the very guy who bought forward the diary!
Yes, you heard me right. Apparently the family was given these books as a donation by the company that published them as part of a disaster relief fund back in 1989. So the Barrett's, the family that brought forward the diary claiming it was authentic and that Mike was given it by a mate in a pub, the only people ever known to have owned this diary, had this book in their house since 1989. And this book has, conveniently excerpted in it, this very line from this obscure poem by this obscure poet. The very same line that just happens to be stuck in the diary! Imagine.
Now, Peter Wood is here to tell us this isn't evidence of anything, this doesn't link the creation of the diary to the Barrett house in any way. No, this is just "a sad coincidence."
As I said before, if I ever commit a crime, I want Peter Wood as the investigating officer.
And he bases this stunningly naive conclusion on what he thinks Mike Barrett should or should not logically do under certain circumstances. (Peter obviously has not been paying attention or doesn't know Mike.)
But here it is, folks. A man comes to you with a book. He says it's real. There's a line in the book that seems out of place. It turns out to be an extremely obscure line. But lo and behold it also turns out to be a line conveniently excerpted and appearing in an essay in a book that the man happens to have lying around his house.
Now granted, most of the laughter I provoked at work was at the thought of James Maybrick putting a line from a Richard Crashaw translation of a sacred Latin hymn in his diary in 1889.
But the scenario where the guy who first produces the book also happens to have the book with the exact same obscure line conveniently excerpted in the middle of a prose essay in it also provokes a few chuckles.
My fifty bucks stands (since I probably won't be in England anytime soon).
The Ricks essay in the Sphere Guide in the Barrett house remains the most likely source, indeed the only historically likely source for the line from the obscure Crashaw poem.
And nothing Peter Wood has ever written anywhere has ever seriously suggested otherwise or ever offered any reliable evidence to the contrary of any sort.
No evidence that the quote came from anywhere other than the Sphere Guide. No evidence that the diary was written in any century other than the 20th. No evidence that the real James Maybrick had anything to do with it, it's not even in his handwriting. No evidence, in fact, that links this book in any way to anyone at all in the proper century. No evidence anywhere on the entire planet earth that this book is anything other than a twentieth century forgery.
And we haven't even started to talk about money yet.
And a page in a book in the house of the only people ever known to have owned this diary which has, conveniently excerpted in the middle of it, the words "O costly intercourse of death."
The very words, from the book these people owned, that found their way into the diary that these people owned.
And they all lived happily ever after.
'Night all,
--John |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:35 pm | | All,
Now I will admit that I haven't put the time into the Sphere guide question that you all have, but I fail to understand why Mike's failure to produce it leads to the conclusion that his library tale is likely to be true.
Mike's behavior regarding the Sphere guide is only really a problem if certain assumptions are made regarding his intentions, and I don't think we're really in a position to know what's motivating Mike. He confesses, he retracts, etc etc etc. There is no consistency here. I see no hint of an overall game plan in his actions. It seems to me that it's pretty hard to say that at any given time he was really trying to make a solid confession.
I think there's a number of reasons that Mike behaves in ways that make no sense to us.
One, Mike drinks. Apparently quite a lot. I think quite a few questions about Mike's behavior might be answered by knowing what his alcohol content was on any given day.
Two, Mike's marriage was self destructing, a child was involved. I don't think that the diary was his highest priority. (I DO believe him when he say that he confessed to "get back at Anne".) We don't know what their relative parts in the diary production were, and there could certainly be some stress in relation to that that would cause Mike to behave in ways we don't understand.
Three, if Mike ever did actually PROVE that he made the thing it would all be over. No more attention, no more leverage over Anne. By making unreliable confessions he could annoy/upset Anne and get the attention he seems to want so badly. Personally, I think this may be Mike's strongest motivator in regards to the diary.
I do not dispute that his failure to produce the Sphere guide makes for an interesting puzzle, but even were we to prove someone *is* the forger we're unlikely to get all the loose ends tied up. I really do think the tension between Anne and Mike, and the alcohol seriously complicate interpreting Mike's behavior. While we know the timeliness of Mike's confessions and retractions we don't know about the arguments, and stress that was coming into play as their personal lives broke down.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that we're only ever going to see a small part of the whole story. And while I would certainly not suggest that we stop asking the questions, I'm beginning to think the Mike's behavior is simply beyond logical explanation given the information we currently have.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 10:14 pm | | Hi John,
What you say is true enough. Mike's behavior is erratic at best and does not always seem to be consistently driven, even by the simple logic of self-interest.
But I think Paul's sketch of events is important and poses a number of problems for those who want to make the case that Mike knew about the importance of the Sphere Guide before he took the book to Doreen's and therefore knew he was carrying a forgery into the public eye.
It still seems that the only argument against Mike knowing the quote was in the book all along is that he did not mention it when he was confessing to Brough. And I agree that this is a troubling piece of behavior. It's his best piece of material evidence. How could he confess in public as part of an attempt to prove he was an all-time forger and not mention the best piece of material he had?
And I have not heard a convincing explanation for this. The closest I have heard had to do with Mike thinking their might be money still to come, via film rights, and therefore hedging his bets in his confession, despite his desire to do in "that bastard Feldman" (as Mike has been known to call him).
But the problem with this is that a number of other things in Mike's so-called confessions don't check out either. The auction house story seems made up (given what the people there said about it), the notion of the diary being handwritten by Anne while Mike dictated it seems ludicrous and no one has been able to match Anne's writing to that in the diary, and Mike has never been able to show exactly where he got all his info and how and how the thing was put together. So either he is deliberately lying by faking a confession when in fact he had little or nothing to do with this, or he's covering up his knowledge with a perfectly dissimulated veneer of ignorance so effective no one has been able to pierce it.
This does not of course mean that Mike didn't know the thing was a forgery or that the Sphere Guide wasn't the source for the Crashaw line. Both of those things are still possible, the latter one quite likely.
Paul points out the gaps and contradictions in the stories told by Melvin Harris and Alan Gray. They have yet to be reconciled or filled in. This seems important.
And, as you correctly point out, there are all sorts of family pressures and addiction pressures and simple mental pressures working on Mike throughout this time and his behavior is not likely to be coherent, let alone reasonable or self-preserving.
But we look for patterns and try and explain the inexplicable. All because we still don't know who wrote this book.
But just as we can be reasonably sure that it did not exist in the 19th century (no-one anywhere has ever been able to place it there in any way whatsoever), we can also be reasonably sure that the behavior of Mike Barrett alone will not finally tell us who wrote this book or when.
I am beginning to believe it might be time to start paying more attention to the money.
But we'll see.
All the best,
--John |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 10:35 pm | | | Is this right-Anne gave the diary to Devereaux to give to Mike so that he might have something to occupy his mind-perhaps write a novel.She didn't really know what she had until later and then after discovering that she was a descendant of Florence Maybrick through the product of an illigitimate liaison she began an extensive research into the matter because of an interest in family history.you mean that these people did not suspicion the importance of this diary to keep it hidden for years and would never appeared unless Anne wanted to help out Mike.If this is so it is absurd. People are proud to be related to Jesse James or Bonny Parker or some famous desperado from the past.If you were to discover you were connected with Jack the Ripper would you hide that information away and only bring it out for humanitarian purposes 100 yrs later.Why, people are delighted to discover they are related to John Wilkes Booth.Some people back then were trying to claim kin to all sorts of shadey characters through reincarnation. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:54 am | | Hi All,
I think those were two cracking posts from the Two Johnnies there. Well done both!
Hi David,
The problem is that we are trying to pin down human nature and apply it to Anne and Mike's alleged individual reactions when seeing the diary for the first time, and then later doing what they allegedly did with it.
We have Anne consistently giving an impression of complete disinterest in the ripper and the diary, but nevertheless going on to research Florie Maybrick and writing a biog on her.
We have Mike never making a secret out of wanting to make cash from publishing the diary, but nevertheless later confessing to writing it himself, putting his royalties (and anyone else's share) at risk in the process.
They could both be lying through their teeth about how and where and when they first saw the diary, and what has been motivating them ever since.
But equally, without the science to depend on 100% (not to mention that pesky watch!), and the unreliability of anyone's gut instincts concerning what goes on in the minds of a divorced couple with a child and an almost certainly faked diary of Jack the Ripper to deal with, who can really stand up and say what is absurd or not?
I agree with waiting to see what the money movements can tell us. But if they show Mike being Mike and spending it, but not on anyone who could be a co-forger, then we are back to square one.
Great, ain't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 02:20 pm | | I'm beginning to think the Mike's behavior is simply beyond logical explanation given the information we currently have.
And that is the best you can do to prove that Mike must have supplied the Crashaw quote?
The most galling part isn't that Mike didn't mention the Sphere guide to Brough, it's that he did mention the Sphere guide to Shirley.
Mike might be many things, including being 'beyond logical explanation', but he ain't stupid. In fact he'd probably make rather a good double glazing salesman. Actually that is not fair, Mike strikes me as being really clever.
But, I wonder, what was he trying to achieve by telling Shirley about the Sphere guide?
The only "logical" part of this whole discussion is that Mike could not possibly have supplied the Crashaw quote from the Sphere guide under the circumstances mentioned.
And John (Omlor) you are sticking to your assertion that the Sphere guide is the source for the OCIOD quote purely because of percentages and odds. i.e "What are the odds on ...?"
The simple truth is that OCIOD appering in both the diary and another book in Mike's house is a coincidence. Pure and Simple (yeah yeah).
And still no one can tell me three artist(e)s who have recorded songs called "God only knows".
Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows. Round and round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel.
John argues that OCIOD had to have come from the Sphere guide purely because of the statistical odds against it being otherwise.
But the evidence actually suggests that the only person who could have extracted OCIOD from the Sphere guide actually did no such thing.
Farewell.
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:56 pm | | Hi Peter,
Since you offer no new evidence against the Sphere Guide being the only likely source for the Crashaw quote, I don't have much to say.
However, there are two things wonderfully wrong about the following statement:
"But the evidence actually suggests that the only person who could have extracted OCIOD from the Sphere guide actually did no such thing."
1.) No it doesn't. The evidence is actually contradictory, as is Mike's behavior.
2.) There has still be no solid evidence offered by you or by anyone else that would allow us to conclude that Mike is "the only person who could have extracted OCIOD from the Sphere guide."
Other than that, though, the sentence is fine.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Lefroy
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:01 am | | "God Only Knows"
As an avid byline reader I could not help but post the following: -
God Only Knows
James
http://james.wattyco.com/cgi-james/songfiner.pl?godonlyknows
God Only Knows
Brian Wilson (Beach Boys)
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/~armel/Music/beach.html
God Only Knows
The Lucky Boys
http://www.luckyboys.com/lyrics/23lyrics.htm
Hmmmmm now what does that prove?
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 09:24 am | | Lefroy
The Beach Boys was one of the three on my list. David Bowie and Gary Numan the other two.
Thank you for the others.
John
Now you change tact and the best you have is this:
"The evidence is actually contradictory, as is Mike's behavior".
The evidence is only "contradictory" because it doesn't suit your opinions. The evidence as it stands is that no sane minded forger would have shown the best piece of evidence available to prove that he forged the diary to Shirley when he was trying to prove the thing genuine, but not show it to Brough when confessing to the forgery.
On this Mike isn't 'contradictory'. He quite clearly didn't know the importance of the Crashaw quote when he confessed to Brough. And the Sphere guide was one of a set that was lodged up in Mike's attic or on his back bedroom window ledge - Mike and Anne didn't have visitors. We know Mike didn't supply the quote, nobody believes Anne had anything to do with the forgery, so that just leaves 11 year old Caroline.
There you go guys - you've got your forger at least, a little 11 year old girl.
But I am joking. And John can't accept that the appearance of the Crashaw quote in the diary and the Sphere guide is nothing more than a coincidence.
We should find something else to discuss.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 10:24 am | | Peter,
You mention that you were a policeman. And you are seriously telling me that the appearance of this very obscure line from this obscure poet in the diary in question and at the same time this very same obscure line conveniently excerpted right in the middle of a book owned by the only person ever known to have owned this diary in question would not be evidence concerning whether this guy or someone with access to this book might have had something to with forging the diary in question? Honestly? That is some seriously warped detective work there.
I can't imagine that you actually believe that the appearance of the Sphere Guide with the line "OCIOD" in it and the appearance of the alleged “diary” with the line "OCIOD" in it -- both in the same house at the same time must be simply coincidental.
There is no other historically likely source for this quoted line from Richard Crashaw's The Mother of Sorrows (certainly not the late 19th century C of E businessman James Maybrick). And the fact that this line appears anywhere near the place where this diary was "discovered" is highly suspicious, and quite legitimately so.
And you misunderstood me. When I said that Mike's behavior is contradictory, as is the evidence, I did not mean it contradicted with anything I thought to be the case. I meant it contradicted itself. It does, time and time again, as Paul has demonstrated quite clearly and in impressive detail. And even Paul agrees that the Sphere Guide is the likely source for this stupid line.
And two more things, since you are writing so quickly and without care, apparently.
First, you say:
"The evidence as it stands is that no sane minded forger would have shown the best piece of evidence available to prove that he forged the diary to Shirley when he was trying to prove the thing genuine, but not show it to Brough when confessing to the forgery."
Define "sane minded forger" and then compare your definition with Mike Barrett's behavior since 1994. Include the drinking, the threatening of personal violence, the telephone and verbal harassment, the mood swings, the lies on top of lies on top of lies, the dramatic changes in personality from one day to the next, and all the other symptoms Mike has repeatedly exhibited. Thanks.
Second,
"Mike and Anne didn't have visitors."
Establish this as true for the period between say, 1989 and 1991. Thanks.
"We know Mike didn't supply the quote,"
In what fanciful sense are you using the word "know" here?
"nobody believes Anne had anything to do with the forgery,"
Do you never feel guilty about just making stuff up and then saying it as if it were true?
Well, I'm sorry I have a desire to discuss this responsibly and with some care given to the truth and the validity and the actual establishment of one's claims. You, like Paul Feldman before you, seem sometimes to forget an important characteristic of language:
Just writing something down does not make it true.
Now I must hit the links.
Bye,
--John |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 01:08 pm | | Hi John
Hope your game of golf went well. I've been busy this afternoon trying to put to bed a book that I've been writing for in excess of twelve months. It was going to be a masterpiece when I started it, but now I just hate it. Ugghh!
At least Man Utd won, but so did your team Newcastle Utd. Arsenal dropped points so we should both be smiling.
"Mike and Anne didn't have visitors."
I can say that because I believe Mike and Anne's description of what went on in their house around that time.
"nobody believes Anne had anything to do with the forgery,"
Well nobody does, do they?
But 'sane minded forger'. You've caught me out there, I'm afraid. I can't supply a definition of 'sane minded forger', because to say that the forger was sane minded I would first have to know who he/she was and as we haven't even established that the diary was forged then it would be a big leap to say that the forger was (in)sane.
Peter. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Thank you Caroline Anne for your sympathy. We have argued in the past and will in the future but I did appreciate your kind words. Regarding your questions for Melvin, he will have seen your message but it's up to him when he responds as he is very busy at the moment.
"We know Mike
didn't supply the quote, nobody believes Anne had anything
to do with the forgery, so that just leaves 11 year old
Caroline." Peter Wood 020202.
Let me just examine that point: "... nobody believes Anne had anything
to do with the forgery..." The first time that the diary can be shown without doubt to have appeared upon the scene was shortly after March 9th 1992. That was the date that literary agent Doreen Montgomery received a call from "Mr Williams." He visited her (in the guise of Michael Barrett) on Monday April 13th and this is the date when the diary greets its public.
There is no doubt that it was, at this time in the possession of MB and his wife.Much later on, his wife (AG) claimed that it had been in the possession of her own family for many years but the only proof of that is her own word together with some equivocable statements on tape from her father.
What reason can we give for her having nothing to do with the forgery? She certainly has the literary ability in that, together with a co-author she wrote her own book on Florence Maybrick. Why should she not also have the technical ability to put together such a production?
I would be interested in comments on why AG could not have forged the diary. If there is some obvious reason which I have missed which makes it absolutely impossible to add her to the list of those who may have forged this thing, I would like to hear it. In the meantime I will continue to assume that anyone who provably had possession of the diary before April 13th 1992 is quite possibly the person who took pen in hand and wrote the thing out.
"And by the way, Montague was clearly not the ripper, so old
Melvin either didn't know what he was talking about or was
just spinning us a line." Peter Woods 270102
Presumably the incomparable Woods means "Melville" in which case I would wonder how he can be so sure that Druitt was not the murderer. He was mentioned by someone who at the least had access to more contemporary information than we have today. The memorandum in which Druitt is mentioned was not meant for publication (and indeed was not published for many years.) It was for private Police circulation.
John:
Regarding the "Mrs Ham(m)ersmith" affair, on October 7th 2000 Shirley wrote:"On July 14th this year, Ripper researcher, Allan Jones sent
me his findings about the lady. He reported that he had
found an M.A Hamersmith living at 21 Peter St, St Helens, in
the 1881 census. She was 17 and married to Benjamin
Hamersmith, 21 year old labourer. Also in the house were
M.A Hamersmith's parents John (coal miner) and Catherine
Mousdell, three young daughters and a niece. According to
Allan, they were the only Hamersmiths in the Liverpool area....
I returned with my colleague Sally Evemy and we began
again..and on the second visit, almost by chance we found
the marriage of Margaret Mousdell - to Benjamin HAMILTON in
1880. I was bitterly disappointed as I hoped we were on
the right trail. So we checked back, to be quite sure, for
Benjamin Hamilton's birth certificate. We found it...the
name was Hamilton. WHY the census made such a curious
mistake..why that particular name appeared in the diary
seven years later still seems extraordinary. Many mistakes
are made in official documents but this particular error -
after all Hamilton does not look remotely like Hamersmith -
was bizarre."
So the indication here is that there is some sort of mistake on the census form and we must remember that at this time in most cases the information would be taken down by an Enumerator from a member of the household who would give the necesary details. This gives an opportunity for mistakes in hearing or transcription to be made. There were however people of the name Hammersmith living in England at this time. From the Internet "Free BMD Project" which is attempting to transcribe English civil indices on to the net I find a note of a family tragedy. In March 1868 Augusta Johanna Hammersmith is born. She dies in the same year and quarter together with Hermenn (Hermena?) Hammersmith aged 34 who may have been her mother. These events happened in (roll of drums) Mile End!
Another record is that of the marriage of Minnie Hammersmith to Henry Charles Bateman September 1883 in Hackney.
My CD of German Vital Records shows me that the name Hammerschmidt is a not uncommon German name and given the Germanic forenames of the Mile End Hammersmiths, I would suspect their name to have been Anglicised. Interestingly, an intensive search of the 1881 census does show only the entries mentioned by Shirley in St. Helens. Minnie is not shown which indicates that she may not have been in the country in 1881 or that she was listed under another name. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Peter B.
Excellent work and an excellent summary of your findings regarding the Hammersmith problem. Thanks.
Peter Wood,
It's getting sad. Here's you:
"'Mike and Anne didn't have visitors.'"
"I can say that because I believe Mike and Anne's description of what went on in their house around that time."
I'm sorry. I asked you to establish the truth of the claim that Mike and Anne had no visitors to their house between the years 1989 and 1991. You haven't done so. (Imagine my surprise.) Want to try again? Oh, and you simply believe the words of the people who happen to be suspected in the case? You must have been a very interesting policeman. No wonder you don't think the Sphere Guide is evidence.
Here's you again:
"'nobody believes Anne had anything to do with the forgery,'
"Well nobody does, do they?"
Yes, plenty of people do. See, for instance, Peter Birchwood's post above.
You really do have to stop just making things up and then writing them down as if you know they are true. Especially when they aren't. It's a disturbingly Feldmaniacal quirk.
You try getting around the phrase "sane-minded forger," which you used to describe Mike, by saying this:
"I can't supply a definition of 'sane minded forger', because to say that the forger was sane minded I would first have to know who he/she was"
But you've missed the point. We were talking about Mike. You were saying he wouldn't have done a certain set of things. You then said no sane minded forger would have. I then asked you to do something for me.
Let's look at the exchange again.
Here's you, talking about Mike's behavior and what you think it indicates:
"The evidence as it stands is that no sane minded forger would have shown the best piece of evidence available to prove that he forged the diary to Shirley when he was trying to prove the thing genuine, but not show it to Brough when confessing to the forgery."
Here's me, asking you to be clear:
"Define 'sane minded forger' and then compare your definition with Mike Barrett's behavior since 1994. Include the drinking, the threatening of personal violence, the telephone and verbal harassment, the mood swings, the lies on top of lies on top of lies, the dramatic changes in personality from one day to the next, and all the other symptoms Mike has repeatedly exhibited."
My point, which should have been obvious to you, is that saying no sane-minded forger would do this or that tells me nothing at all about what Mike would have done about this or that, given Mike's behavior since 1992. Do you doubt this? There's lots of first hand testimony and lots of harassing phone calls on tape and lots of lies on top of lies and lots of drunken nastiness and lots of threats under oath even and lots of inexplicable and irrational self-contradictions and lots of clinical paranoia and lots of personal instability and lots of dramatic mood-swings and... Well, you get the point.
You know, when you are not allowed to stray from the record and the facts and when you are not allowed to just make stuff up and write it down as if it were true, there does not seem to be very much behind your arguments, Peter.
This saddens me, strangely enough. Perhaps tomorrow will be better.
All the best,
--John
"Writing something down does not make it true."
-- Rule #1 in A Reader's Guide to the Work of Paul Feldman. An unpublished manuscript of important reminders. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Peter Wood
Excellent work and an excellent summary of your findings
Why, thank you John! Ok I had to doctor one of your posts to Peter B. but I couldn't resist the opportunity. Maybe one day ...
I have to agree with you, Peter's research has been sterling. I wonder though Peter, are you suggesting that the diary "forgers" found Mrs Hamersmith in the census and used her accordingly without being aware that it was a misrepresentation of Hamilton?
And Peter, you are right, I did mean Melville, too much Melvin on the brain for me.
As to my comments regarding Anne. I have read much of what people think of Mike and his actions, but nobody appears to say much of Anne. That is why I felt justified in saying nobody connects her with the forgery. She kept very quiet in the early days of the diary when Mike was buzzing around like a good 'un.
I suppose though, that in light of your comments, I would have to concede that Anne is as likely a candidate as the million or so other people who were living on Merseyside in 1992. Seriously, Mike has contradicted himself a few times and even claimed to have forged the thing. But Anne hasn't. And if they had colluded on the project then Mike's actions don't make sense.
And Keith believes Anne's "In my family for years" story.
John Omlor. Sane minded forger. Here goes.
I am a sane minded forger. I forge a document with the intention of convincing the world that it is genuine and that I, indirectly at least, have solved the greatest murder mystery of all time. I make more money from that forgery then I have probably seen in my life. Then I get asked to investigate my own forgery (as Shirley asked Mike to investigate OCIOD). What do I do? I do the bl**dy investigation and give her the one piece of evidence that could prove the thing a forgery. Now that ain't sane. But never mind, because during one of my weird moments when I decide to confess to forging the thing because I believe there is more money coming from that direction, I don't bother showing my diary busting evidence to the reporter taking my story. Sane minded? Uh uh. Weird? Yep.
Do you get it now?
Back to Peter B.
Regarding old Melvin, sorry Melville. Melvile MacNaghten didn't become Asst Chief Constable at Scotland Yard (C.I.D.) until 1889 after the ripper murders were over. He wasn't even present in Whitechapel. So all he had was what we have now, granted that some files may have gone missing. But read his words carefully and it is clear that it is all pure abject speculation. Melville knew jack! Or should that be Melville didn't know jack? Hmmm ...
As to Montague John Druitt. Quite clearly today the only "evidence" against him is that he is mentioned in Melville MacNaghten's memoranda and as I have pointed out, that ain't evidence of any kind. And, in the same way that Eddy was proven to be playing golf (or whatever) in Scotland on the dates of two of the ripper murders, so Montague was shown to be playing cricket in Dorset on the dates of two of the murders. So quite how he came into the frame is in itself a mystery. And that suggests to me that some people really did know absolutely nothing and were just making things up because they found MJD's body in the Thames in December 1888.
And that is that.
One last thing. Do me a favour and leave the 's' off the end of my name or I will start doing the same to you.
Regards
Peter |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 01:35 pm | | Peter (W):
You write:
"Seriously, Mike has contradicted himself a few times and even claimed to have forged the thing. But Anne hasn't."
Well, there's a bit of hair-splitting going on here. Anne backed up Mike's story about his getting the mysterious book from Tony at the pub and them opening it together, etc., without telling Mike what she only later told everyone, that she gave it to Tony (allegedly). Now this might not be a direct moment of self-contradiction -- but it is clearly a change of position regarding the "discovery" of the diary. And then the "oh, it's been in my family for years" story only developed a good while after that, when Paul Feldman began nudging his laboratory mice in certain specific directions.
And I happen to know, Peter, that Peter Birchwood is not the only person that believes Anne could have been involved in the forgery to one degree or another. The fact that she is directly in the original money loop (and did not arrive only after the fact the way Shirley or Paul F. did) itself means that she stands to gain from the production of the book and the continued promotion of the book's authenticity, and that keeps her much more properly in the ring of suspects than "the million or so other people who were living on Merseyside in 1992."
But as a policeman, you would know that already.
Your paragraph on Mike lost me. I have no idea what you are arguing, but predicting Mike's behavior or accounting for it the way you would account for the behavior of a "sane-minded forger" makes an impossible leap of faith, especially given Mike's documented behavior in public since 1992. Paranoia, chronic alcoholism, verbal threats of violence, written threats and abuse, telephone harrassment, marked and unmistakable mood swings, complete disregard for consistency of either personality or story, habitual lying, and all the rest indicate more than clearly that trying to argue that Mike couldn't have done A or B because it isn't logical or doesn't seem sane is just ridiculous. There is a record. It is clear. It is documented. It makes it obvious that your argument that Mike couldn't have or wouldn't have done something simply because it is illogical and self-defeating in no way corresponds to that already available record.
Do you get it now?
All the best,
--John |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 11:25 pm | | | What do you mean by Re-Evaluation?Does it mean that you will dicuss all the minutiae of James Maybrick. Why couldn't Anne have written it? The way you all talk poor Mike didn't have enough sense to write it. Also I think you ought to seriously discuss Ivor Edwards premise. It is a wdide open field that takes in a very important part of Victorian culture. You may sismiss A. Crowlet as a nut case, but there are those who call him a genius. Ivor's man is a forerunner of Alistair Crowly and the O T O.A historian, Webb, has written two books on this important subject-"The Occult Undergrough' and 'The Occult Establishment' where he presents a good case foe Esoteric Masonry in an environment of Theosophy and secret orders.It is not too silly to leave alone.1-The 4 victims were deliberately placed in the 4 points of the quadrant.2-They were all placed to be found in the position of intercourse.Only Stride was not because he didn't have time.This thing was not random. Do you think so? Well if you do that is fine,but it deserves a hearing.-A RE-EVALUATION.It is just a viable as the Victorian Zorro Maybrick leaving M's around to vent his hatred of his wife and her lover.Ivor's position deserves a hearing, and not the pot shots we get from our resident debunkers of everything.This area of Victorian Sex- Black Magic is not a ridiculous pursuit. Whether you like D'Onston as a suspect or not the fact that such pursuits were practiced by some of the Elite of society.Even W T Stead wound up in the pursuit of spiritualism. You may ignore it and beat Maybrick to shreds,but Ivors position is worthy of consideration. Have tou ever thought where P. Wood will be without the aura of James Maybrick?Too horrible to contemplate.Is the subject of James Mabrick really a Re-Evaluation? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:43 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter (B),
Thanks for your post.
You wrote:
‘If there is some obvious reason which I have missed which makes it absolutely impossible to add her [Anne Graham] to the list of those who may have forged this thing, I would like to hear it. In the meantime I will continue to assume that anyone who provably had possession of the diary before April 13th 1992 is quite possibly the person who took pen in hand and wrote the thing out.’
I can’t think of an obvious reason which makes it ‘absolutely impossible’. But the handwriting question springs to mind as the obvious difficulty I have with your ‘quite possibly…’ assumption.
People are more than happy with the conclusion (professional and amateur) that the diary was not written in Maybrick’s documented hand. Yet when it comes to Anne Graham’s, they say they can’t comment because either they aren’t qualified to do so, or they haven’t seen any of her handwriting for themselves. Yet didn’t Keith Skinner make sure long ago that Sue Iremonger had samples for comparison? And has anyone (apart from Mike Barrett) so much as hinted that the diary looks like it could have been written by Anne, even in a totally disguised hand? I just wondered.
And if it’s unrealistic to suspect Maybrick just because the diary is provably meant to be about him, when the handwriting is such a major stumbling block, why is it realistic to suspect Anne as ‘the person who took pen in hand and wrote the thing out’, when the handwriting appears to be just such a stumbling block in her case too?
If you are going to put forward an argument for Anne as the penwoman, aren’t you under a similar obligation to have her handwriting analysed to support that argument, as those who have argued for Maybrick as penman?
This would come with the added bonus of a perfect opportunity to behave better than the Maybrickite(s). If the experts say the writing in the diary does not match Anne’s, you’ll accept that she didn’t write it, and won’t fall back on MPD or any other silliness, to keep her in the frame. You could then argue for Anne being involved in some other capacity, like composition or research, before the real penman writes it into the scrapbook.
Hi David,
I think 'Re-evaluation' refers exclusively in this case to the diary, going over the evidence for when it may have been written, who by and why.
Certainly Ivor's position on D'Onston as the black magician ripper deserves a hearing as much as the next theory, but this is a Maybrick Diary board and one would not expect any of us to be discussing other suspects in any depth here.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
