|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 13 March 2002
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 04:27 am |        | Chris -
Apologies for not having noted that you had already identified the 'Saddle'.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 05:28 am | | Hi All,
I do read all John O’s posts to me, and I do appreciate the fact that he has noted the distinction between my legitimate concern about the reliability and conclusiveness of the test results in general and what each result claimed at the time about the age of the diary.
And yes, the reliability and conclusiveness of the results remain the topic of another discussion, which has already taken place elsewhere and which will no doubt continue to take place in the future.
But I see every reason to keep reminding everyone, on this board too, where John repeatedly tells Peter Wood, and anyone else still reading their posts, what the science did tell us, that, while he may be able to legitimately claim it to be a true statement, it certainly doesn’t represent the true picture of how the science stands today, ie what it really has been able to tell us, reliably and conclusively, up to this minute. I think that’s essential in any responsible and objective debate about the age of the diary.
John knows as well as I do that not everyone reads everything as carefully as they should. So I can’t believe he would wish anyone to come away with the impression that just because he states over and over again that all the science has placed the creation of the diary in the 20th century, it’s QED and the end of the story.
Hi RJ,
I also find it interesting that two people have said that Devereux wouldn't have given away anything of value. Evidently your interest doesn’t extend to considering whether, if true, this means he would not have willingly entrusted the diary to Mike Barrett’s care – unless it wasn’t his to entrust to anyone, perhaps, or unless he didn’t know what it was when Mike first saw it.
You are still talking about your lack of confidence in Anne’s truthfulness, and the facts indicating to you that the diary is of recent origins. That’s your considered opinion and you are entitled to it. But could you answer my question about whether you would have believed Anne’s story had she told it right from the start, handed over the same diary to researchers outside the commercial domain, and never once been inconsistent or shown any signs of being untrustworthy or less than open and honest about it? If not, then her truthfulness or otherwise is irrelevant to your argument that the diary is a modern forgery.
And I have always said that Mike Barrett’s many inconsistencies tell us nothing at all about whether he was involved in the forgery or not. It is you who appear to have interpreted his every word and deed as suspicious and indicative of his involvement.
If the presence of chloroacetamide in the diary ink, as found by AFI, proves conclusively that Diamine was used, that’s fine. I find it incredible that Alec Voller doesn’t appear to have been asked this simple question, and that his answer, “Yes, I must have been mistaken, the diary ink must be Diamine”, or at least, “No, I still maintain the diary ink is not Diamine, but the presence of chloroacetamide indicates another ink of modern manufacture”, hasn’t been plastered all over these boards in capital letters by your friend and mine, under the title: WAKE UP AT THE BACK THERE, THE INK HAS PROVED THE DIARY TO BE A MODERN FORGERY, SO WHY ON EARTH AM I OFFERING TO SHOW ROBERT SMITH MIKE’S SPHERE GUIDE? By Melvin Harris.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 07:47 am | | Hey All,
Geez, what a bunch of gloomy guses we've had here of late. To all of those who are frustrated by the lack of progress, I would ask "Where is the progress on the WC murderer?" We've been at that for 113+ years and haven't got him yet. I've been reading the other boards and I certainly don't see any indication that there's been a major break in that case yet. Oh, that's right. It's Sickert. Yep, progress.
Given that, it's a bit early to give up on the diary IMO. More information will become available, new insights will be gleaned, and personally I think that eventually the forger will get nailed.
For all that the debate here might not be everyone's cup of tea, I think that in many ways the diary board has consistently had higher quality discussions than most of the rest of the Casebook. The people who post here are knowledgable and tend to stick to a higher standard of debate... With obvious exceptions of course.
I've certainly found this discussion useful in improving my understanding of the diary. And undoubtedly there are others reading these boards that find them interesting as well.
Hiya Caz,
"How was the forger planning for the watch with its scratches to make its debut, if Albert knew nothing about the plan and was therefore not assigned an active role?"
I would tend to doubt that there is any conspiracy surrounding the watch, but if Albert was not involved in the creation of the markings, there are still a few other possibilities. Under those circumstances it seems pretty likely that the forger simply got lucky/unlucky with Albert's discovery. It's hard to imagine anyone but Albert or one of those present manipulating that.
Creating the scratches on the watch and then artificially aging them wouldn't require the huge investiture of time that creating the diary would have. Also, the markings themselves are hard to see, so it's not possible to say definitively when they appeared. This kind of opens the field of opportunity in the sense that anyone who might have had access to it could have created the marks.
That gives us a few possibilities to start with and there are undoubtedly other people who would have had access to it. If he kept it in a drawer, it possible that it could have been removed, altered, and returned without his knowledge. It's the sort of thing that could even be done as a joke.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 09:41 am | | Caz--Yes, I think I can say that I would have been more inclined to have believed Anne Graham's story had she been consistent and forthcoming from the beginning. Ultimately though, you are right, she still would had to have offered some 'proof' at some point to counter the many problems the Maybrick diary seems to present us. But I guess I don't appreciate the merit in the argument. She has been inconsistent, and she has changed her story. Mike, too. She could have told her story to Scotland Yard when they came visiting, for goodness sake. So what does this tell us? Logically, you & John O. can keep arguing that this doesn't prove a thing about who forged the document. On the otherhand, it also still leaves us with two people who have come forward with a forged document who can't give a convincing or consistent story about where it came from. In the real-live world has there ever been a case where the people who have come forward and made money off a literary hoax haven't been involved in its creation, or, at the very least, known its true origins? I can't think of an example.
The chloroacetamide can be brushed aside as a joke, I suppose, but I think it is very bad news indeed for Anne's story. We are told that Anne's father had heard about the diary as far back as 1943, and we know Anne claims to have seen the diary in the late 1960s. But Philip Dowe has posted that his information is that chloroactamide was first efficiently produced in the 1940s. [Melvin has given his source of the expensive, time-consuming method of its production in Victorian times]. Melvin has also cited the Aldrich Chemical Company as the first commercial manufacturers of the compound in the 1960s. Maurice Chittenden in the "Sunday Times" has its first use in ink manufacturing to have occured in 1974. [Sunday Times, 13 November 1994]. Now maybe these dates could be ironed down a little further, but the current information seems to indicate to me that on the ink evidence alone there is almost no chance of the diary having been written in the time-frame that Anne's unconfirmed story indicates. Not unless the information above is wrong. Voller should certainly be considered as having given us an expert opinion. But it is a visual examination; it can't be considered a scientific test. I'm not after an argument, I'm after the truth. If someone can dispute these findings, so be it. RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 11:35 am | | Hiya John H,
Let's see if between us we can't lift the gloom and keep the standard high too. I'm on a high today because the sun is shining here and Will Young is on the radio belting out 'Anything is Possible' and, well, it's very nearly Spring! What more could a girl want to keep that playful smile on her lips?
The problem I have is that, apart from maybe Chris George, I've yet to hear of anyone who has met and talked with Albert (and I don't know how much of a conversation Chris had with him, or what questions he asked) who thinks it is remotely likely that he is a forger. Neither do I believe Albert knowingly orchestrated the discovery of the scratches at his workplace, deceiving his friends and presumably his lovely wife and granddaughter Daisy (for whom the watch was originally bought), in the process of deceiving Robert Smith and attempting to deceive everyone else who has ever become involved. And all for - what? A bit of fun? A headline or two in the newspapers? Something to make Daisy proud of her old grandad in years to come?
It makes no sense to me at all. Yet to others, who haven't met the man, it's as obvious as moving chess pieces around the board. Either Albert is involved or, as you suggest here, someone was able to borrow the watch from the drawer he kept it in, make the scratches and put it back, sitting back and waiting for them to be discovered. But let’s face it, that could quite easily have been a very long wait, judging by the faintness of the scratches. Time might never have revealed anything. So whether it was done in jest, or in the hope of gaining something out of Albert’s artefact as time went by, the forger could hardly have expected his work to be found in the way it was and when it was. And when both Wild and Turgoose concluded that the scratches appeared to be decades old (and therefore if any artificial ageing was done it was done rather successfully), our very practical joker must have known he’d played all his cards right and come up trumps. You have to hand it to him.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 11:58 am | | Hi, Guy:
No problem about the Saddle pub. And thank you for adding the interesting details about Liverpool's former connections with the White Star line and Cunard line. Of course, it was on stationery for the White Star liner Baltic that Maybrick wrote the letter that Peter Wood insists is in the same handwriting as the Galashiels JtR letter, and it was in fact on board ship on a passage between England and America that James Maybrick met the ill-fated belle of Mobile, Alabama, Florence Elizabeth Chandler. Y'all know the rest. 
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:21 pm | | Hi RJ,
I wasn’t considering Voller’s visual examination as a scientific test as such. But I think the anti-diarists dismiss his expertise in this particular respect at their peril. He was, after all, the chief chemist for Diamine ink, and yet his opinion suddenly holds weight when it comes to endorsing AFI’s working methods. So wouldn’t Voller make the ideal ambassador to persuade the pro-diarists, and those on the fence dangling their legs in the sunshine like me, over to your garden where you frolic with the likes of Peter Birchwood and Melvin Harris, by way of a short and simple but definitive statement, that the day AFI found chloroacetamide in the diary ink, it changed everything, including his own opinion that this document was ‘at least 90 years old and may be older’ when he saw it in 1995?
Then no one could afford to brush the chloroacetamide aside as a joke. And the whole sorry saga could be over for good. Unless it’s not that simple and Melvin knows it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 01:54 pm | | Well guys, it looks as though the penny has finally dropped.
I`ll leave you to your board. I was only taking part in an interest of mine too.
Sorry i haven`t been to Oxford.
Yours truly.
"obvious exception"
Tee
P.S All the best on your journey John. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 02:22 pm | | Tee,
There is another world for you....
One where we do not judge you just because you wear an earring...
Leave those that repeat and twist, snide and sneak and come to my world....
A world where the light shines bright....
Go to the light Tee Vee...go to the light...
Come out of the basement and join us !
Monty
PETER WOOD
He is maaaaa wiife naaahhhh ! Ha-ha-ha-haaaaa ! |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 01:02 am | | A very rapid fly-by.
R.J.P., you wrote: it also still leaves us with two people who have come forward with a forged document who can't give a convincing or consistent story about where it came from.
Actually, that should be ‘who aren’t giving a…’ if you actually believe that one or both of them could give a convincing and consistent story. On the other hand, maybe they really ‘can’t’ give one because they don’t have one to give. And if that is what the evidence really indicates you should be wary about dismissing it because you can't think of a precedent. That has to be a first time for everything.
And if Anne has lied then that shows only that she has lied. It tells us absolutely nothing else. The only thing that can tell us something else would be why she lied. Obviously, if she lied to give a spurious provenance to what she knew to be a forged document then we can shut the book and go home. But if she opportunistically lied to get her hands on the talked about film money and didnot know the ‘diary’ was a forgery, that leaves the 'diary' origins open and unknown. If you know which of those she did, you can present the evidence. But let’s not ignore altogether the third possibility, namely that her ‘in my family for years’ story isn’t a lie at all.
The problem is, though, that whether her lie was opportunistic or based on knowledge that the 'diary' is a forgery, wouldn’t Anne have feared exposure, especially if she all along knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery? Wouldn’t Anne at least have distanced herself from the investigators? That’s surely what any sensible person would have done. But it’s not what Anne Graham did. She actively assisted the investigators in the research that could have exposed her. She also accepted their trust and their friendship. And she went on to write her own book on the back of that lie. Would she – could she – have done all that when she knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery?
Of course she could. But it’s easy to cast someone you don’t know into any mould you like and we can therefore cast Anne Graham as an outrageous liar, callously betraying the trust and friendship of others, deceiving anyone and everyone – and continuing to do so for nearly ten years. |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 07:15 am | | Hey Caz,
"The problem I have is that, apart from maybe Chris George, I've yet to hear of anyone who has met and talked with Albert (and I don't know how much of a conversation Chris had with him, or what questions he asked) who thinks it is remotely likely that he is a forger. Neither do I believe Albert knowingly orchestrated the discovery of the scratches at his workplace, deceiving his friends and presumably his lovely wife and granddaughter Daisy (for whom the watch was originally bought), in the process of deceiving Robert Smith and attempting to deceive everyone else who has ever become involved."
As you know I haven't met Albert, so I really say anything about his demeanor, however I have met enough talented liars that I can't imagine that I would be convinced simply because they didn't seem to be the lying type. What can I say? I'm cynical.
"And all for - what? A bit of fun? A headline or two in the newspapers? Something to make Daisy proud of her old grandad in years to come?"
Sure, why not? I'd be proud if my grandad could pull it off. Who wouldn't? :-) I can think of a number of reasons why someone might do it. It would certainly be a lovely conversation piece.
"It makes no sense to me at all. Yet to others, who haven't met the man, it's as obvious as moving chess pieces around the board."
I don't think it's at all obvious... But I certainly think there is sufficient evidence to look at the possibility he's involved.
"Either Albert is involved or, as you suggest here, someone was able to borrow the watch from the drawer he kept it in, make the scratches and put it back, sitting back and waiting for them to be discovered."
There are other possibilities yet (if nothing else we know Ron Murphy and Tim Dundas have had access to the watch), but any of these 3rd party scenarios run into the problem you suggest. How was the discovery arranged? If it indeed was. Albert & co. could simply have found them. Albert's finding them as he did wouldn't necessarily mean that their discovery would not have been "helped along" by someone else later. Presumably anyone with access to his drawer would be in a position to lead him into conversation about the watch.
"And when both Wild and Turgoose concluded that the scratches appeared to be decades old (and therefore if any artificial ageing was done it was done rather successfully), our very practical joker must have known he’d played all his cards right and come up trumps. You have to hand it to him."
Personally, I would be glad to shake the (watch) forgers hand. If it's a recent forgery, it's a clever piece of work.
But I've been thinking about Wild and Turgoose. They are metallurgists, they're not actually experts in fraud or forgeries are they? I'm curious as to what their experience with this sort of dating is. Maybe it's time to try and track the good Dr's down.
I have a question for you. You seem to dismiss (or at least) doubt the Albert could be involved. And a 3rd party would create discovery issues of course. But if we assume that the marks have been there for a while, then we have the mother of all discovery problems... one where the forger makes the thing and for all intents and purposes simply abandons it. Why do you think they would do that? What would you consider to be a reasonable scenario? I'm interested in your take on what an "old forgery" would entail.
Tee Vee,
I was in no way, shape, or form aiming my (somewhat regrettable) snipe in your direction. Many apologies.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:14 am | | Paul--Hi. It just seems to me that if the fact that Anne lied "tells us nothing else", then it also "tells us nothing else" if she was willing to stick her neck out and even become part of the diary investigation. One might make something of the fact that none of this took place until six months or so after the Scotland Yard investigation yielded few results, and they publically announce there would be no prosecution. Her meeting with Paul Feldman is still the key to it all, of that I'm convinced. She met with him because she was pressured by her sister-in-law, it seems to me. I doubt she could have forseen how it would all turn out, and subsequent events merely took over.
Technically, I wasn't bashing Anne for lying. I was bashing her because on one hand she shows contempt for the curious who are discussing the Maybrick diary [and even for Whitechapel enthusiasts in general] while at the same time seems to be quietly promoting the diary and certainly helping in Shirley and Paul F's investigation. 'Contempt' is a strong word. To me, her actions look convenient and mercenary. But no doubt to her supporters, she is merely refusing to "cast her pearls before swine", as it were. Or so I imagine. Cheers, RP
Apologies for the grammar. I do tend to think "won't tell" is more accurate than "can't tell". |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 09:49 am | | Hi All,
I am going to take some quotes from a post by Peter Wood, which Alegria moved in its entirety from this board to the unarchived Pub Talk board: Arguments off the subject. As Alegria explained, the post was moved to save herself the trouble of having to delete it and all of its replies in 3 days. But I feel that some of what Peter wrote should be saved for posterity, and for all those readers who don’t make it to the unarchived boards on time to read everything there before it disappears for ever. (I do appreciate that Alegria hasn’t the time to sort out what she feels is relevant to the discussion, and therefore has to choose between leaving whole posts intact, or moving them elsewhere if she feels they are partly or wholly irrelevant or inappropriate to the archived topic under which they were posted.)
Now, here are Peter’s words which I feel are relevant to the current debate:
‘John [Omlor], the 19th century was 100 years long. The diary came within twelve years of the end of that decade. The McNeill test placed the composition of the diary within 20 years of the Whitechapel murders.
Now, that's not good enough for you, because McNeill couldn't state emphatically that the diary was composed in 1888/9.
Imagine for one minute:
The diary is composed in 1805.
McNeill's tests date it to 1895.
That's a difference of 90 years, but to you, John, it's in the same century.
The tests date the diary to within 20 years of Maybrick's death. AND THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
Why?
Because it takes Mike out of the equation. It takes Anne out of the equation. It takes St Gerard, Sphere book, Begg, Fido, Skinner and all the other text books written post 1975 out of the equation.
"It placed the diary's creation at a point in the twentieth century, after Maybrick's death.
Technically correct.
McNeill's tests could not have been expected to date the diary to day/date/month/year. But they did date it to within 20 years. So whilst this:
"It placed the diary's creation at a point in the twentieth century, after Maybrick's death
is a valid conclusion, so is:
"It placed the diary's creation at a point so far back in time that the Sphere book becomes redundant, Mike could not possibly have been the forger and the texts that a 'forger' would have been needed were not even written".’
I do understand [this is Caz back again BTW] Peter’s frustration over John’s repeated use of ‘right century/wrong century’. For someone who recognises rhetorical and sleight-of-hand arguments so well, and condemns them so roundly in others, John must surely know the effect he himself is creating, when he puts his own arguments in such terms. The difference in real time between something being created in one century or the next is meaningless, as Peter has pointed out. But the (desired?) effect in the mind of the reader is to put 100 years between, when in fact it could be a snap of the fingers around midnight on New Years’ Eve 1899. 1899 and 1900 are just numbers, a man-made way of sign-posting our way through time.
In terms of resolving the age of the diary (which is after all what everyone is trying to do here, whatever our persuasion, if we have one), it isn’t actually relevant if all the science places the diary’s creation in the ‘wrong century’. The science has to place the diary’s creation unequivocably to post-1987 or we immediately hit problems (the alleged use of Mike’s Sphere Guide and Eddowes’ list of possessions for starters). Even Martin Fido acknowledged as much in 1993, when he made the observation, based on McNeil’s 1921 + or – date: ‘Science dates the document to a historically impossible period’ and ‘This undoubted fact [tin matchbox empty] was not in the public domain until 1987 so the journal is either genuine or a very modern forgery’.
So while we can knock Peter Wood when he reaches certain conclusions based on faulty reasoning, and praise John Omlor for pointing this out, the truth can’t change according to how well-crafted the arguments are presented for or against it.
If the diary was created at any time before 1987, never mind before New Year 1900, I would have exactly the same problems as the anti-diarists, explaining how it got here.
And, to John H, this last point touches on, if not addresses, your own point about what if the marks in Albert's watch have been there for a while. We do indeed then have 'the mother of all discovery problems... one where the forger makes the thing and for all intents and purposes simply abandons it'.
Why do I think they would do that? What would I consider to be a reasonable scenario? I don't have a take on what an "old forgery" would entail, for either diary or watch. That's the problem. I'm still trying to work out reasonable and workable scenarios for a pair of modern hoaxes, taking into account everything I've seen and read about the subject. For all I know, an unknown joker left the diary somewhere for an unsuspecting Mike Barrett to find, and the same joker made the marks in the watch and left it somewhere for an unsuspecting Albert to find. Is there any evidence that tells us it can't be so?
Have a great weekend all. And do come back Peter.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 10:17 am | | Hi again John,
You wrote:
'I'd be proud if my grandad could pull it off. Who wouldn't? :-) I can think of a number of reasons why someone might do it. It would certainly be a lovely conversation piece.'
But here we are not talking about 'someone'. We are talking about Albert Johnson - a proud man who, if I'm any judge at all, would not recognise or approve of this kind of pride, and might well find remarks like these upsetting and offensive. Perhaps we ought to be a bit careful not to judge people, least of all complete strangers, by our own standards?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 10:38 am | | Hey Caz,
"In terms of resolving the age of the diary (which is after all what everyone is trying to do here, whatever our persuasion, if we have one), it isn’t actually relevant if all the science places the diary’s creation in the ‘wrong century’. The science has to place the diary’s creation unequivocably to post-1987 or we immediately hit problems (the alleged use of Mike’s Sphere Guide and Eddowes’ list of possessions for starters). Even Martin Fido acknowledged as much in 1993, when he made the observation, based on McNeil’s 1921 + or – date: ‘Science dates the document to a historically impossible period’ and ‘This undoubted fact [tin matchbox empty] was not in the public domain until 1987 so the journal is either genuine or a very modern forgery’."
I'm sorry, I simply do not agree here. While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Fido, I think his claim that "Science dates the document to a historically impossible period" to be unfounded. The "tin matchbox empty" argument has always seemed to be a stretch to me. I think it's a case of trying to read too much into the scant text that the diary gives us, and it's based on some false assumptions.
1) The the "tin matchbox empty" reference was unavailable to our forger. Although Fido's book didn't come out till 1987, the list certainly existed prior to his publishing the book. We have no idea who could have had access to it. Until we know that, we certainly can't rule it out as a viable
2) That the forger "had" to have been aware of the "tin matchbox empty" reference to write the diary line. I don't think that's the case. Various newspaper reports listed tin boxes, match boxes, etc. Complaining about an empty tin box doesn't necessarily mean he's seen the "tin box empty" reference. It could very well be happy coincidence.
The "it has to be post 1987" argument has always seemed to me to be a fairly cheap way to try and excuse the fact that science so far has not been on the diary's side.
"For all I know, an unknown joker left the diary somewhere for an unsuspecting Mike Barrett to find, and the same joker made the marks in the watch and left it somewhere for an unsuspecting Albert to find. Is there any evidence that tells us it can't be so?"
Nope, there is nothing whatsoever that would rule that out at this point. :-)
"But here we are not talking about 'someone'. We are talking about Albert Johnson - a proud man who, if I'm any judge at all, would not recognize or approve of this kind of pride, and might well find remarks like these upsetting and offensive. Perhaps we ought to be a bit careful not to judge people, least of all complete strangers, by our own standards?"
I am not judging him. Nor am I accusing him. I thought I've made that pretty clear. I don't attach any kind of moral judgment here whatsoever. I was in fact attempting to respond to what I felt was your unduly harsh description of him should he in fact be the forger. I happen to think that the evidence still makes that a possibility. I simply don't think that forging the watch would necessarily make someone a bad person. If he wants to be offended by my lack of condemnation, than that's up to him.
RJ,
I am interested in your idea that Anne's sister-in-law could have pressured here into meeting Feldman. It certainly seems possible, but doesn't it seem like a lot of work to go through to simply call off Feldman? Couldn't she have just said "It's mine" without going through the trouble of faking a provenance for it?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 12:11 pm | | "Neither do I believe
Albert knowingly orchestrated the discovery of the scratches
at his workplace, deceiving his friends and presumably his
lovely wife and granddaughter Daisy (for whom the watch was
originally bought), in the process of deceiving Robert Smith
and attempting to deceive everyone else who has ever become
involved."
Belief is one thing; evidence another. Feldie (p 27) quotes Albert as saying that he had bought the watch in 1992 as an investment for his granddaughter, then 2. This may be true. Where however is the evidence for that "truth?" And what does it add to the facts of the matter that someone has a "lovely wife?"
It's nice I suppose to want to make sure that the wise words of Wood are preserved in amber BUT: the McNeil test referred to "showed a median date of 1921 plus or minus 12 years." So this test places the diary at the earliest at 1909 some 18 years after Maybrick's death. So even this test doesn't go anywhere to making the diary the words of James Maybrick. And Wood's comment: "AND THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
Why?
Because it takes Mike out of the equation. It takes Anne out
of the equation. It takes St Gerard, Sphere book, Begg,
Fido, Skinner and all the other text books written post 1975
out of the equation." also takes Maybrick out of the equation. Possibly Wood never thought of that.
But to keep Wood happy perhaps we should say that century or not, the nearest date that any test can put to the diary construction is 18 years after its supposed author died. Would we really pay much attention to a document purportedly in the handwriting of Hitler that was dated by a similar test as 1975 plus or minus 12 years?
So do we praise Wood for reaching certain conclusions based on notably faulty and specious reasoning and knock Omlor for pointing this out? Well obviously some of us do. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 12:29 pm | | Hi, all:
Since my name was mentioned in connection with Albert and the watch, let me say that I have no idea whatsoever whether he put the scratches in the watch and whether he is another Maybrick hoaxer to go along with the hoaxer of the Maybrick diary. I only met Albert briefly long enough to gain the impression that he seemed a kindly old gentleman and to think, as I thought previous to meeting him, that the responsibility for those scratches possibly belonged to his brother Robbie rather than to Albert. In any case, my sense is that something is rotten in Denmark and the watch ain't what it purports to be.
In regard to Peter Wood's statement on the McNeill test, I have pasted in below something I put on the unarchived board along with my call for him to reconsider leaving the boards. Since my thoughts serve as an adjunct to Caz's thoughts about Peter's point, I am placing them here:
Hi Peter:
I did want to take issue with you with one point you made, that if the McNeill test dates the Diary to twenty or so years after 1889 it means that it could not have been forged by Mike, Anne, and Co. and therefore it has to be genuine. Not so! Of course it could have been forged by someone much earlier in the twentieth century than the time the Barretts got the Diary. In any case, it appears, from my standpoint, that there is no evidence whatsoever that James Maybrick was the person who put those immortal words down on paper.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 01:05 pm | | Hiya John H,
'1) The the "tin matchbox empty" reference was unavailable to our forger. Although Fido's book didn't come out till 1987, the list certainly existed prior to his publishing the book. We have no idea who could have had access to it. Until we know that, we certainly can't rule it out as a viable'
I could not agree with you more.
'2) That the forger "had" to have been aware of the "tin matchbox empty" reference to write the diary line. I don't think that's the case. Various newspaper reports listed tin boxes, match boxes, etc. Complaining about an empty tin box doesn't necessarily mean he's seen the "tin box empty" reference. It could very well be happy coincidence.'
I agree with you 100%. I have made a not altogether dissimilar argument here on the boards on more than one occasion.
'The "it has to be post 1987" argument has always seemed to me to be a fairly cheap way to try and excuse the fact that science so far has not been on the diary's side.'
Maybe. Maybe not. But people on both 'sides' have used this 'cheap' argument since the off because they know damn well what problems it would cause if the diary even pre-dated mid-1989 (think Sphere book for starters).
'I simply don't think that forging the watch would necessarily make someone a bad person.'
Subjective viewpoint really. Many many people would think of this forgery as a criminal, irresponsible and immoral act - not to mention a deception that has caused a lot of people a whole lot of misery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 01:19 pm | | Hi Peter B,
I have no evidence that Albert didn't orchestrate the discovery of the scratches at his workplace, deceiving his friends and presumably his wife and granddaughter Daisy, in the process of deceiving Robert Smith and attempting to deceive everyone else who has ever become involved.
Have you any evidence that he did? Or do you just believe he must have done because you see no other alternative?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 02:03 pm | | John H--Hi. Well, I for one disagree with your view of 'tin match box empty'. Grammatically it is a damn odd construction [the style of an inventory list]. I rule out coincidence. And I don't see anything in the Maybrick Diary that would convince me that the writer had done any advanced research. The factual material is all very perfunctory, and that it came from recent sources [including the Sphere] all agrees very well with what I feel are other good indications that the diary was composed recently: Baxendale's solubility test and the AFI test. I'd expect to see at least two or three items of interest that aren't in "popular" sources if the diary were based on original research. The time of the Frigate race is the best thing the diary has to offer on this score. If you place this diary back to 1920 or 1940 you're going to have some serious enigmas regarding the text.
As for Anne's provenance, the next time you have an idle hour or two, you might want to re-read Feldman pages 151-181. This covers the time between Feldman researching Mike's background [his great great grandmother was Mary Kelly] up until the time of the Billy Graham interview. Note that Paul Feldman already had three seperate provenance theories involving Anne Graham before she came forward. So I personally don't think it is a matter of Anne Graham having "taken the trouble" of providing a provenance. I think she came forward to make Feldman "back off", and then the events of those weeks took on a life of their own. The provenance we now have evolved from those events over time, having something to do with the interactions of Feldman and Anne Graham. Or so I believe. Cheers, RP
But I've done more than my fair share of harping on the Maybrick diary. I've said this before, I know J but I'm now going to give it a rest for a nice long time. See you all upstairs. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 04:27 pm | | Hi, RJ:
I agree with you that it's likely that Anne Graham's "revised provenance" for the Maybrick Diary evolved over time and that before she came up with it Feldy was coming up with all sorts of scenarios for how the Diary got into the hands of others after supposedly being in the hands of the ailing James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper. I rather think, as you do, that Anne's story was brought about by Feldman's probing, and, I should add, the fact that no one in the meanwhile had come forward to say the Diary had come from anywhere else or to claim authorship for the thing, other than Mike's questionable confessions of having done the deed.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Tee Vee
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 06:07 pm | | | Well thanks John, i would hate to come on here and make a fool of the serious debate, so your words are good to hear. i do like coming on here and reading and joining in on the posts, so its nice to see that i`m still welcome ????? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 09:35 am | | Hi RJ and Chris,
RJ, you say that Feldy already had three seperate provenance theories involving Anne Graham before she came forward. And that therefore you think that when Anne came forward to make Feldy back off, the events of those weeks took on a life of their own and the provenance we now have 'evolved from those events over time'.
Before you disappear upstairs again, could you explain what you mean by 'over time' here? In other words, how much time do you think elapsed from when Anne first realised that Feldy had these three provenance theories involving her, to when she first 'came forward' to make Feldy back off? And how much time do you think elapsed from Anne first coming forward, to when she made her fully fledged 'in the family' statement, which has not altered since?
I'm just trying to get a sense of how long you think this evolution took from beginning to end. Several months? A few weeks? A few days?
And Chris too please. What do you think?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 02:46 am | | There's a lot to this thread. I hope y'all will forgive me if I don't read through every message on here, and I hope I'm not repeating someone.
I've just been doing some reading on forgers and their techniques, and have convinced myself that 'scientific dating' of documents is a fun exercise, but doesn't actually help stop a forger who does a little homework.
Dating of the diary comes up with a date too early for Barrett and too late for the Ripper. It is (not suprisingly) impossible to forge a document and make it appear to have been written in the future, so I don't believe the diary is genuine.
But keep in mind that 'plus or minus 12 years' when dating documents really means - as early as 12 years before this date, and as recently as yesterday.
A good forger, or even a somewhat crude one, will use old paper. That's half the battle, right there.
The ink is the hard part. From the reading I've done, there's two common methods for testing inks:
1) The acid test. Many types of inks used in the past become resistant to acid as they age. By seeing how easily the inks can be dissolved with acid, you may determine an approximation of the ink's age. (No, I don't know what kind of acids they use, sorry.) Caveat: it's actually rather easy to create an acid-resistant ink that will fool this test. Anyone who does a little catch-up reading can mix up a batch.
2) Chemical analysis. Just what it sounds like - try to figure out what's in the ink, and compare it to inks used in the day. Caveat: anyone with access to, say, a library can also see what inks were used in the day, and make a batch for him- or herself.
Other "scientific" methods of dating manuscripts range from the useless (stylistic analysis) to sheer bunk (handwriting analysis). (Well, to be fair, stylistic analysis can spot the sloppiest of forgeries, such as the guy who wrote letters from Galileo in French. Or the other guy who forged old letters and accidentally signed his own name to one.)
While I do suspect Barrett of forging the diary, this isn't necessarily so. I'm merely pointing out that dating the diary only shows the earliest date it could have been made - never the latest.
--
Andrew Millar |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 12:09 am | | Caz--Hi. Very briefly. I think there's three ways of looking at Anne's provenance story. First, despite it being a 'hard to swallow', one might argue that it is consistent on an emotional level, and that Anne didn't really lie so much as she just avoided telling how her family was connected to the diary. She had personal reasons for doing what she did. I think that's the 'pro' argument. Then there's the 'anti' argument. AG's story was nothing more than an attempt to rescue the Maybrick diary once Mike confesssed to the press; she was motivated by the desire to keep the royalties coming in.
But between these two extremes there's another possibility worth considering. I think it is possible that AG merely blundered her way into a corner. Feldy was researching Mike & Anne's background. Entirely by accident, Mike's sister got hold of Feldman on the phone. She tells him off and demands that he leave the Barretts alone. Shortly afterward, Anne also contacts Feldman. Clearly, she had talked to Mike's sister. Is she really calling him to provide a new provenance, or to reveal the truth? Maybe. But it looks to me like she's calling PF in order to convince him to 'back off'. Feldman, in turn, accuses Anne of being connected to the diary. They talk for four hours, and no doubt Feldy tells her his various theories about where the diary 'really came from.' They meet a few days later. Then there's a third meeting. Finally, PF meets Billy. Did AG intend to become involved with the diary and create a 'new' provenace? Or did it just sort of work out that way? Maybe it was just an off-hand expedient story that ended up paving her into a corner? And over the next few weeks became 'fleshed out' by PF's research? Something to consider. Cheers. |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 07:29 am | | Wow. That was a long weekend. After months of overtime and a weekend lost, my current project is finally in place at work! A week or so of panicked bug fixes and I may even get a quiet few days. Gack. But in the meantime.
Caz,
"But people on both 'sides' have used this 'cheap' argument since the off because they know damn well what problems it would cause if the diary even pre-dated mid-1989 (think Sphere book for starters)."
Yeah, it's unfortunate.
I have little doubt that the book was in fact post 1989, but I don't think that the date can be regarded as an absolute at this point. There are certainly other places the references could have come from.
RJ,
Many thanks for your replies. It is certainly an interesting idea. I did read back through the Feldman/Anne interview in Feldman's book and it reads to me like she went there with the idea of a provenance in mind. She brought up the "step granny who accompanied Yapp" to Florrie's trial. That seems a bit a stretch to imagine that she came up with it off the cuff, unless of course Paul Feldman led her to it. Which is possible of course. She also was willing to bring her father into it, which would seem odd if she was trying to get Feldman off the Baretts backs. Why point him at your own sick father to spare your ex-in laws?
It certainly does seem to grow rapidly after that first meeting though. I will read through the whole Anne provenance tale again beginning to end and give it some more thought.
All,
Was the interview with Billy Graham taped? And if so, have any of you heard it? I would be extremely interested the impressions of those who had.
Andrew Millar,
Welcome! The state of the tests on the diary to date is pretty sad. As far as I can think of offhand, the only test that was done to establish any sort of age was the ion-migration test and that's pretty useless. There have been a few attempts at chemical analysis, but for the most part there didn't appear to be very thorough or inclusive. (For example the AFI tests were looking only for the presence of cholorocetamide to evaluate Mike's diamine forgery claimes.)
I've put in a lot of time looking into what it would have taken to create the scratches on the watch, but haven't put in a lot of time looking at the diary as a physical forgery. Could you suggest any books on the subject?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 11:05 am | | Hi Andrew,
I wasn't here yesterday and so missed your post pointing out where 'Maybrick' should have read 'Barrett', which apparently disappeared into thin air.
I don't know what happened to it, but clearly Alegria knows enough about the subject not to have deleted such a post, which thereby required further explanation and comment. So it remains a mystery.
So okay, you meant:
'Dating of the diary comes up with a date too early for Barrett and too late for the Ripper.'
And you also wrote:
'But keep in mind that 'plus or minus 12 years' when dating documents really means - as early as 12 years before this date, and as recently as yesterday.'
Well, the 'plus or minus 12 years' in this case refers to only one specific test, Rod McNeil's ion migration test, which suggested a date for the diary's creation of 1921 - give or take 12 years. Leaving aside for a moment all the doubts expressed since about the test itself (including the most recent ‘pretty useless’ from John Hacker), could you explain how 'minus 12 years' in this instance doesn't actually mean 1933 at the latest, but really means as recently as the day Barrett took the diary to London?
Thanks.
And what do you make of Dr. Eastaugh's professional opinion, which clearly suggested
that if the diary had been written 'yesterday', or in fact at any time in the 3 to 5 years immediately preceding his own examination, he would have been able to show it? The fact that he couldn't points to one thing - that the very latest the diary could have been written was around October 1989 - ie 3 years before Eastaugh's examination in October 1992.
So how does that tally with your statement that 'dating the diary only shows the earliest date it could have been made - never the latest'?
Hi RJ,
Thanks for your thoughts about Anne’s provenance story, as told in July 1994. As you say, if it’s true, she had personal reasons for keeping quiet about it at first, and simply not adding anything to Mike’s account of getting the diary from Devereux. And if it isn’t true, the reason for telling it might have been a desire to keep the royalties coming in. Except that, despite the various statements Peter Birchwood has shown us on the boards, I don’t think it has yet been established whether royalties were ‘coming in’ at that point in time – ie by way of a fixed, regular 25% share to Anne from Shirley’s book - and if not, whether she had been seeking such a share from the appropriate parties. If we knew either to be the case, it would allow for further speculation that her story to Feldy was to counteract any damaging effects of Mike’s recent confession on her own diary income. But it would be hard for anyone to conclude that cashing in was Anne’s first priority if she were not already receiving a regular percentage, and had not even asked to receive one.
Your third possibility is interesting and certainly worth considering. I can see why you think Anne could have ‘blundered her way into a corner’, once she was aware that Feldy was researching her background. But when was this, and when did she actually contact him, whether it was with the intention of talking about the diary’s provenance, or whether she only meant to tell him to 'back off' from Mike’s sister and other relatives? Yes, it was a long call, and one can well imagine that it involved Feldy telling Anne his various theories about where the diary came from. And perhaps, as you suggest, Anne never intended to become involved but it just sort of worked out that way. But when you also suggest that ‘over the next few weeks’ her ‘new’ provenance story became 'fleshed out' by PF's research, I’m still not quite with you. How much time do you think elapsed between the four-hour phone call, in which Feldy provided Anne with a theory on which she based her story, and her actual statement, fully ‘fleshed out’ and consistent ever since?
And wouldn’t a similar scenario apply if Anne’s story were true? In other words, if she began with the sole intention of making Feldy back off, still not intending to become involved, and he then spent the next four hours telling her how he knew she was involved, except that she knew where his theories were way off the mark and also that he wasn’t going to back off, is it unreasonable to think that it would end up with her telling this man the truth, and making arrangements to ask her dad if he would talk to him too?
And what about John Hacker's excellent point, that if Anne's original intention was merely to get Feldy off the backs of her estranged husband's relatives, isn't it rather unlikely that she would dump her own elderly and, in fact, dying father right in the middle to achieve this aim? Unless of course her story is true and Billy was therefore already in the middle of it?
I’d be interested in hearing Chris George’s views too, particularly regarding how long he thinks Anne’s story took to evolve, from conception to statement.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 11:16 am | | Hello Snark (John Hacker):
Yes the interview with Billy Graham was taped. At the Oxford mini-summit on the Diary that I attended on October 2 last, Keith Skinner handed over to Peter Birchwood a transcript of the interview along with a betting slip in Billy Graham's handwriting ("James Maybrick" 100-1 to be proven to be Jack the Ripper ha ha  --excuse the levity). I am not sure if there are any plans to share the actual tapes with Birchwood or others but perhaps Keith can address that point.
It occurs to me that if there is any truth to the rather strange story of Steve Powell's that the Diary was actually fabricated in Australia when Anne Graham worked as a nurse there, her "admission" backed up by her father that the Diary had been in her family for decades (at least since circa 1943) could have seemed preferable to 'fessing up that she had been part of a forgery scheme in Ozland circa 1969 or a more recent plot with her husband Mike. Her "in the family for years" story gives no appearance of the Diary having been recently fabricated, and leaves open the possibility that the Diary might actually have come from James Maybrick and be authentic, which is just what Paul Feldman wanted to hear.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S., John, looking forward to meeting you at our Baltimore Ripper Weekend upcoming April 19-21. Not long to go now! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 04:34 am | | Hi Chris,
I will be sending Keith the latest diary posts as usual. But perhaps in the meantime you could address my question to you? 
You know, the one about how long you think Anne would have had to conceive, flesh out and put the finishing touches on the story she told in 1994, if it was pure invention.
RJ talked about 'over the next few weeks', which has confused me a bit, and I was hoping he would clarify this for me, but he seems to have disappeared upstairs again. Since you agreed with RJ about Anne's story evolving over time, do you also agree with him about the long phone call with Feldy giving Anne enough food for thought to start putting her story together? And about her initial determination, to get Feldy off the Barretts' backs, becoming so side-tracked by his wild theorising that she ended up equally determined to get Feldy on her sick father's back instead?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 07:08 am | | Chris,
Thanks for the info. It's certainly an interesting puzzle.
I could certainly understand why Billy might help provide a provenance to protect Anne. That would make perfect sense. I find it hard to believe that he would do that to protect Mike's family though, particularly when he apparently wasn't getting along with Mike.
Whatever the truth happens to be, the BG interview is definitely one of the most intriguing parts of the whole diary mess.
I've read Steve Powell's account and find it interesting, but I'm not sure what to make of it beyond that. Certainly it's fascinating to think that the fabrication of the diary might have been a long term hobby. I kind of like the idea that there might be other drafts, perhaps with different suspects. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to verify his account.
I can't wait for the conference, it'll be my first vacation in years! Good times will be had by all.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 10:19 am | | Hi John,
Isn't it a bit like the risk Albert took in talking about his watch before taking it for tests? If Anne told Feldy about the diary being in her family before running it past her dad, and asking him to actively support such a tale, I wonder what the risk factor was? Supposing Billy had said, "No fear, girl. I'm going to let Mike stew in his own juice. He's confessed to writing the thing now and you're best off out of it. We don't want these diary people sniffing around us forever."
And by the way, what do you make of the argument for one or more of the parties involved in the conception, composition and production of such a document seriously thinking that "It came from a mate down the pub who died last summer without saying where he got it from" could serve as a believable and enduring provenance for their work, or, as you suggest, for their 'long term hobby'?
I mean, honestly, doesn't this strike you as a glaring inconsistency, even if you agree with RJ that the diary could have been put together without a great deal of thought, care, research, or expertise?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 10:48 am | | Hi Caz:
I will have to make a close study of Feldman's book to give you an exact time frame on how long it took Anne to come up with her story but as RJ is indicating, it would appear that it was a combination of circumstances that brought about Anne's story: 1) the fear that the money would dry up if the Diary is definitely known to be a recent forgery and not by Maybrick, 2) Mike Barrett's confessions, 3) Feldman's badgering of all and sundry, 4) Feldman himself offering various and disparate hypotheses for chain of possession of the Diary from Maybrick to the Barretts. As for the "It came from a mate down the pub who died last summer without saying where he got it from" story, I should think by the summer of 1994 it was obvious that the story was totally inadequate and that a new story was needed. That the Diary was put into the public arena with such a poor provenance might show either that the forgers were very naive to think that such a story would fly or that the Barretts somehow came into possession of the document and knew nothing more about it, i.e., they are not the forgers.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 12:37 pm | | Hi Chris,
Thanks for the reply. I would be grateful if you could support your argument for Anne's story evolving 'over time'.
Meanwhile, 1) and 2) As I have been saying, if Anne wasn't already receiving a regular fixed percentage, and hadn't been asking for one, when she decided to tell her story, there is simply no argument for her fearing the 'money would dry up', either as a result of people not believing the diary to be genuine, or Mike's confession (in the singular, I believe, when Anne first said the diary had been in her family).
3) Feldy's badgering of 'all and sundry' turned into concentrated badgering of Anne and her elderly sick father as a direct result of her coming up with her story.
4) The effect on Anne of Feldy's disparate hypotheses can only be guessed in conjunction with your guesses in 1), 2) and 3). Take away the financial motive and you are left with the unenviable task of picking up the contradiction of Feldy's overactive imagination causing an intelligent woman to throw her own dad on the fire when her original purpose was to rescue her ex in-laws from the frying pan. And you'd still have to explain what made Anne suddenly care about providing a provenance for Feldy to work with, when I should think it was always obvious to her that the original 'man in the pub' story would be totally inadequate, never mind by the summer of 1994.
Yeah, the forgers were incredibly naive if any of them thought such a story would fly. In fact, their naivety knew no bounds if on top of that the 'man in the pub' was actually one of those forgers!
That's why I feel we cannot let go of your very sensible alternative possibility - that the Barretts did not forge the diary and don't know who did or when.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 05:53 am | | Hi All,
Well, it's like the atmosphere when Vic Reeves has just told a corny joke on 'Shooting Stars'.
John O is getting away from it all and having a whole lot of fun somewhere else.
Peter W has lost his sense of fun and feels the sand has been kicked in his face.
Peter B hasn't been back to explain why his belief in Albert's (and/or Robbie's) involvement in forgery doesn't need to be supported by the available evidence.
RJ and Chris are taking their time clarifying their opinion that Anne's story evolved over time, was fleshed out 'over the next few weeks' after talking to Feldy for four hours.
And poor Andrew Millar has mysteriously disappeared, before he could address my points about dating the diary - a bit like one of his posts mysteriously disappeared, because he committed the unpardonable sin of correcting a previous post with his next, instead of digesting 'Read This First' thoroughly and editing the original like a good boy. And by the time he tried to do so it was too late. All too late...
Boy, it's like The Twilight Zone. Are we talking Allyan abductions or am I getting carried away on the SS Cons-Piracy?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 06:34 am | | Dear fellow Ripper fans,
I was reading through my new book "The ultimate Jack the Ripper sourcebook" (paperback) and when i got to page 89 the whole book started again, from the top. And being that i had two sets of the first three chapters, this meant that i was losing the last three chapters and the apendix etc this fact was true, infact it was missing the last four chapters, so if you havent got this great book yet, and are thinking of getting it, please be very careful which one you pick up. Oh and this guy with a limp keeps showing up in the background of these police files.
Wish i was going to Baltimore. Have a great time and come back with loads of tit bits for us. Enjoy. was going to go do some retail therapy, but the weather is being mean on my day off.
Caz. Poor old Debbie Daniels caught it hard off of Ulrika ka ka ka on the night didnt she. put the claws away Ulrika ka ka ka. keep it up vic and bob. RIP the poor dog who Vic`s tumble weed joke killed lol |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 07:11 am | | Hey Caz,
"Isn't it a bit like the risk Albert took in talking about his watch before taking it for tests? If Anne told Feldy about the diary being in her family before running it past her dad, and asking him to actively support such a tale, I wonder what the risk factor was?"
They're similar in that they're both very slight risks in my opinion. Albert would certainly be running little or no real risk. As long as it was done carefully there is little chance of detection. And even if it were demonstrated to be a forgery it doesn't implicate him necessarily, and considering that he hasn't tried to sell it I expect his liability would be small even if nailed.
As far as Anne and Billy goes it seems likely to me that she cleared it with him first, but if not I don't think that means there was real risk. She undoubtedly knew her father well enough to judge if there is a risk he wouldn't back her.
But then, the whole diary forgery is a risky business. Unlike the watch, the diary can be demonstrated to be false on many fronts. (Handwriting, ink, content, etc) It's a much more ambitious project.
"And by the way, what do you make of the argument for one or more of the parties involved in the conception, composition and production of such a document seriously thinking that "It came from a mate down the pub who died last summer without saying where he got it from" could serve as a believable and enduring provenance for their work, or, as you suggest, for their 'long term hobby'?"
I think it makes perfect sense. One thing the forgers couldn't really do is connect the diary to real world history and give it a provenance. Indeed, they still haven't. We got a lovely story with not a jot of evidence whatsoever to back it up. (And did they pick a sympathetic ear to tell the diary provenance story to or what?)
Given that they can't actually give it a "real" provenance the Devereaux story is actually pretty good. It's a great way to not have to answer questions, "No point in asking me, it came from the dead guy." I don't know that they would have thought it was believable, but it certainly wasn't something that could be proved to be false. And isn't that the important thing?
It seems to me to be a great way to mitigate risk and yet still claim ownership of the thing. By placing the origin of the book with Tony, they maintain a little distance and have at least a little hope of shoving blame over to him if it's declared a fake. Which of course it was, but no one paying the bills seemed to care. :-)
You suggested to Chris that Anne wouldn't have any reason to fear that the money would "dry up". The money probably would not have dried up, but it would certainly give her leverage over Mike. It also allowed her to spin off her "Last Victim" book, and given that she's probably a shoe-in as a consultant if they ever make the "Battlecrease" pic. Whether she thought the money would dry up or not, it certainly seems to be to her financial advantage to claim ownership in that way.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 07:44 am | | Tee Vee,
You might want to hold on to your mutant sourcebook. Ripper books tend to be highly collectable. There's probably someone who would pay extra to have a "unique" item like that.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 11:44 am | | Hi Tee Vee and John,
Good to see I'm not quite on my own yet.
John,
I see you are shifting the goalposts slightly over the risk factor with the watch. Previously you argued that Albert made sure he got the desired test results under his belt before trying to market his artefact. Now you are arguing that, ‘Albert would certainly be running little or no real risk’, because ‘even if it were demonstrated to be a forgery it doesn't implicate him necessarily, and considering that he hasn't tried to sell it I expect his liability would be small even if nailed.’
You are betting that Anne would have cleared her story with Billy first. But I note you are covering yourself this time in case she didn’t by further speculating that she ‘undoubtedly’ knew her father well enough to judge if there was a risk he wouldn't back her. Could this be a bit of a circular argument, in which you are using the fact that Billy was prepared to back Anne’s story to argue that she was right to have no worries on that score?
I agree with you that the whole diary forgery is a risky business and a more ambitious project than the watch, although, as you know, I don’t share your confidence in the diary ink’s ability to demonstrate very much.
You make some good points about the Devereux provenance. But remember that others will argue that Devereux was actually one of the forgers. And if ‘it makes perfect sense’ because ‘we got a lovely story with not a jot of evidence whatsoever to back it up’; and the ‘story is actually pretty good’ because it’s ‘a great way to not have to answer questions’; and it ‘certainly wasn't something that could be proved to be false’; and it’s ‘a great way to mitigate risk and yet still claim ownership of the thing’ – well, one wonders what they’d have done if Devereux hadn’t done the decent thing and conveniently shuffled off when he did!
I’m not sure I understand what ‘leverage’ you think Anne wanted over Mike regarding the money. But in any case you seem to be missing my point entirely when you write: ‘Whether she thought the money would dry up or not, it certainly seems to be to her financial advantage to claim ownership in that way.’ I’m not asking whether Anne thought the diary money was in danger of drying up or not. I’m not even questioning the potential financial advantage in her claims about the diary’s origins. What I am asking for is the evidence that Anne even cared that the money generated by the diary might dry up, if she wasn’t already getting a regular fixed percentage of it anyway, and she hadn’t even asked about getting one. If true, this would surely argue against any financial motivation to tell her story.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Hi, Caz:
You stated to John Hacker:
"I’m not sure I understand what ‘leverage’ you think Anne wanted over Mike regarding the money. . . What I am asking for is the evidence that Anne even cared that the money generated by the diary might dry up, if she wasn’t already getting a regular fixed percentage of it anyway, and she hadn’t even asked about getting one. If true, this would surely argue against any financial motivation to tell her story."
I don't know about you, Caz, but I find that in order to pay my bills, when I have an income source of some kind, whether it is regular or not, I would prefer the income keep coming in compared with not getting that money. I should say this would be particularly so with a woman who is separated from her husband and who has a teenage daughter to bring up, as was very much the case with Anne Graham and her daughter Caroline. Possibly the mother instinct was at work here? 
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 01:51 pm | | Hey Caz,
"I see you are shifting the goalposts slightly over the risk factor with the watch. Previously you argued that Albert made sure he got the desired test results under his belt before trying to market his artefact. Now you are arguing that, ‘Albert would certainly be running little or no real risk’, because ‘even if it were demonstrated to be a forgery it doesn't implicate him necessarily, and considering that he hasn't tried to sell it I expect his liability would be small even if nailed.’"
Er, no... I've never set goalposts for the watch. Ever. And I've always felt that the risk factor was low. Which is actually what I was saying in the post you're citing there. I was responding to one of your posts regarding what risks the forger might have faced.
What I said was: "And one last thought that just occured to me (I really need to sit down and make a timeline of the whole watch thing), *if* we're going to assess the risk to the forger that the watch might pose it's worth noting that (hypothetical forger #1) Albert did take the thing to Dr. Turgoose before taking it to Shirley or showing it to Ron, etc. So before he would have taken any serious risks, he would have had at least one sceintific opinion backing his position."
It was certainly not the main point of my post, nor have I argued that it needs to be the case. I was simply trying to suggest that if we look at the potential risks run by the forger, we should also look for signs that they tried to minimize their risks.
"You are betting that Anne would have cleared her story with Billy first. But I note you are covering yourself this time in case she didn’t by further speculating that she ‘undoubtedly’ knew her father well enough to judge if there was a risk he wouldn't back her. Could this be a bit of a circular argument, in which you are using the fact that Billy was prepared to back Anne’s story to argue that she was right to have no worries on that score?"
I was simply suggesting that it seems reasonable that most people would know their own parent well enough to guess how they would react. I would bet that Anne did clear it with Billy, but that's just a guess. I'd bet money on it but not my life.
"You make some good points about the Devereux provenance. But remember that others will argue that Devereux was actually one of the forgers. And if ‘it makes perfect sense’ because ‘we got a lovely story with not a jot of evidence whatsoever to back it up’; and the ‘story is actually pretty good’ because it’s ‘a great way to not have to answer questions’; and it ‘certainly wasn't something that could be proved to be false’; and it’s ‘a great way to mitigate risk and yet still claim ownership of the thing’ – well, one wonders what they’d have done if Devereux hadn’t done the decent thing and conveniently shuffled off when he did!"
I don't think we have anything to go on to rule Devereaux in or out at this point. I was evaluating the story as given. If it's a lie, it's not necessarily a bad one in my opinion. If Devereaux hadn't provided them with the happy opportunity he did then it probably would have been something else. There's no way to even hazard a guess.
"What I am asking for is the evidence that Anne even cared that the money generated by the diary might dry up, if she wasn’t already getting a regular fixed percentage of it anyway, and she hadn’t even asked about getting one. If true, this would surely argue against any financial motivation to tell her story."
Maybe it's an "American" thing, but I assume everyone has an interest in money until proven otherwise.
Regards,
John Hacker |
|
|
|
|
