|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 22 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 22 March 2002
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 03:35 pm |        | Hi, John:
I am pleased that you and I agree 100% on the  motive.
Chris |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 01:26 am | | DAMN BLAST DRAT !!!!!!! I KNEW YOU`D SAY THAT.
But i took it back to the shop. I had a feeling it would be of interest to someone. But being that it didn`t have the final chapters, i thought it useless. I`ll ring shop to see if they still have it, but whats funnier is there must be one out there with no begining and two endings lol. (dont know why i`m laughing, i took it back!!) I even said to the lady "you never know, it`ll probably be worth a bob or two in a few years. DAMN BLAST DRAT!!!!!!! Hi Caz and others |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 09:31 am | | Hi, Tee Vee:
If you had only known, you needn't have sweated toiling with Billy Graham in Dunlop's tire factory all those years! 
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 01:17 pm | | Hi Chris,
That was a bit below the belt - or spare tyre. That comment from Billy had a real ring of truth about it, that had he known the diary was valuable he would have cashed it in years ago, given up the twelve-hour shifts slaving on dirty big tyres, and could have been lying on the beach instead with a couple of strippers all over him.
But of course, you wouldn't be taken in by this ploy of the old man's to 'protect' Anne and her source of income.
'...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 agree with you and I'm sure most people would.
But if that 'income' had so far not been in the form of a fixed regular and equal share (like the one Mike had been receiving), wouldn't you have tried to sort that out first, directly with those dishing out the royalties? Would your first port of call seriously be to tell a complex lie to Feldy instead, about the origins of a suspicious document your spouse had become involved with? How and why would you expect that lie by itself to guarantee you a regular fixed share from Shirley's book, if you were not already getting one? Do you think Anne expected (or asked) to start receiving a formal share in return for her story to Feldy? I understood it kicked in as a consequence of the divorce.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 01:40 pm | | Well guys, i have traced the "mutant" book down and with a bit of luck i`ll have it back in my posession by tommorow evening. (fingers crossed) But in searching i found a book thats been recently ?? re printed "The complete history of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden (Robinsons, paperback)£8.99. The title sounds familiar but i dont recognise the cover, and I havent seen this particular book in the last year or so that i`ve been scouring book shops for anything on the Ripper, so just thought i`d let you know, IF you havent got it already ? i haven`t the time to read it as of yet, as i have too many in line awaiting. Sorry this does not follow board. But these long hard shifts at Dunlop are doing me head in. Take care guys.
Yours truly
Tee - Vee |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 03:49 pm | | Hi, Tee Vee:
Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper has just been republished in a new edition with a rewritten introduction. It is one of the best books on the case. I suggest you read it on your tea breaks at Dunlop's. It is a book with which you will never become tired. I might add that Sugden rightly views the Diary as a forgery plain and simple.
Hi, Caz:
Again, I would suggest that Anne's admission of the Diary having been in the family for years was suggested by her to keep the money coming in, irregular though it may have been, in the face of Mike's confession that could have meant the money could have been preremptorily cut off. I see it as a move of opportunity afforded both by Feldman looking for some explanation of how the Diary got to the Barretts and the fact that no one else had come forward to suggest a way in which the book had come into their hands. Feldman perhaps even provoked the "admission" by starting to suspect that the Diary originated with Anne's family through some type of Maybrick connection. Although by then he was seeing Maybrick connections everywhere, wasn't he, as in his Maybrick facial resemblence "evidence"? The man was desperate to find something and Anne obligingly gave it to him.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 04:04 am | | Hi Chris
Assuming that Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story is a fabrication, what can we deduce from her motive for fabricating it that helps us identify the forger? We are still apparently left with nothing more than Mike’s ownership of the Sphere book linking him and the creation of the ‘diary’ – and I remain to be convinced that he didn’t find the quote at Liverpool library and there’s been no comment on or response to the seemingly hugely conflicting stories attributed to Alan Grey, otherwise the only confirmation that Mike knew about the quote or its significance prior to October 1994. And Anne doesn’t appear to be any more ‘connected’ than Mike does (if her story is a fabrication). So, is there anything – any tiny bit evidence anywhere - that links Anne to the forgery/forgers? That makes Anne’s story anything more than simply an opportunistic (and in my opinion, wholly understandable) lie to get hold of promised film monies? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 05:52 am | | Hi Chris,
'Again, I would suggest that Anne's admission of the Diary having been in the family for years was suggested by her to keep the money coming in, irregular though it may have been, in the face of Mike's confession that could have meant the money could have been preremptorily cut off.'
But you still haven't addressed my point that, in her shoes, you or I would have first ensured that the lion's share of the money that was coming in was not going to our estranged partner to be squandered on whatever nonsense while you or I, with a child to support, got sent one or two odd cheques here and there that didn't consititute a formal percentage of the spoils at the time - and only started doing so later, as a consequence of the divorce.
One possible explanation is given indirectly here by Paul, who thinks Anne may have told her story to get hold of promised film monies. Do you think this carrot distracted her and made her forget about establishing her 25% book royalty share? Would you or I, as newly single parents, struggling on a day-to-day basis on a low income, not bother with squeezing all we could from Shirley's book, already established as a regular source of income, if not ours yet, thinking instead that the future film money was already as good as in our grasp?
Having said that, of course, Paul is right at the end of the day, and is echoing my recent point to RJ. Whatever made Anne tell her story, and whatever money she was going to make directly or indirectly as a result, and whatever she felt about that money and where it was going to come from, it can't help us with the question of who was involved in the diary's creation or even who must have known the diary was a modern forgery when Mike brought it to London.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 07:47 am | | this is like talking to bricks in a brick wall.
you make me feel like a moron from outer-space.
Anne told me the story that the diary was in her family for years,in 1969!
yes,she was a part of the forgery plot but i say, yet once again to you,that she told me this story in 1969.
does anyone hear?
is anyone there?
Hello...? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 07:59 am | | Evidence, Steve, we need the evidence baby.
We can't thrive without it - or rather, the diary can't, either as a pre-seventies forgery or a twinkle in the eye of a sixties teenage Anne.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 15 March 2002 - 09:51 am | | Hi, Steve:
Nice to hear from you again. I recall, and this can be verified I believe by going back to your past posts, that you have told two different stories that appear to indicate that 1) the Diary was already in the possession of Anne Graham's family in England, and 2) the forgery scheme was committed in Australia with the participation of a man from the Merseyside area (you stated he was from Birkenhead, on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool). Which story is the correct one? Or don't you know? Certainly, we are interested in listening to you, Stephen, but the story needs to be both clarified and verified.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 02:25 am | | Hello Caz,
what would you take as evidence?
Howdy Christopher,
Anne told me in 1969 that the diary was with her father in england.
Through investigation of my own over the past two years,i have learned that the diary is a forgery,penned in outline by my old sixties friends.
i shall attempt to write in full detail all i have learned and this time i shall name all of the players,in full.
the discrepancies in my statements are due to new details emerging,simple as that.
as far as verification or evidence goes,this can only come from the forgers themselves,that should be obvious to all by now.
regards
steve powell.
16-3-2002 |
Author: Stephen Powell
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 07:58 am | | Hello all,
a long but needed message to you.
Here is an e-mail i sent to Peter Birchwood last year.
i have not edited a word of it.
Dear Peter,
I hope this note finds you alright,at the moment I am using two computers and your address is on the other one which is being overhauled.
some notes on steve park;
I travelled and lived with steven for around ten years.
He was obsessed with the occult.
In one house we lived in,he turned his room into a black magic,ritual room and wanted me to indulge his fantasies by taking part in his antics.
I have been a buddhist from an early age and this type of crap would always drive me nuts and I would tell him so,to his chagrin.
We spent many a lonely night on the road,literally sleeping in the open fields and he and I would let our imaginations run wild with stories and beliefs.
His spelling ,by the wqy,was atrocious.
I remember a conversation that we had in a railroad workers hostel in Northam,western australia (where we managed to pick up some work)
and he was talking about Diaries of famous people and I think he was talking about the hitler diary that was 'found'.
I thought about who's diary it would be exciting to find and i said that if jack the ripper's diary was found it certainly would be something!
He was very taken with this idea.
Now,this would mean that Anne Graham got the idea from him and it would also mean that she is the Anne that he had been telling me about for some time.
Which means that she came to australia with the intention of seeing steven,who was living in the area.
How I came to meet her before I was introduced to her by steven was obviously,pure chance.
After we had parted company and I was playing with my own band,I went around to his parents house where he was staying and we waited up to hear my new record being played on the radio.
He was absolutely green with envy and was quite upset that I would be 'famous' and he would'nt.(we had spoken about 'fame' many times on our travels together).
Maybe this was his reason for attempting to write jtr's diary.
All of this has come to me after careful analysis of years of conversation and simply putting two and two together.
There is so many incredible coincidences,that I can only say that my thoughts and summations must be true.
I recently found Victoria's phone number and rang her to ask what she remembers of that time and of steven.
Her response was that she could not remember anything.
Now let me tell you why she has said this;
I was engaged to Victoria at the time of these things happening and (as I found out years later) she was having an affair with steven,which she told me herself and was verified by others who knew us at the time.
One day she came around to where I was living with my band and produced a childs small blackboard on which she wanted us to write some poetry,her stipulation was that we include the words 'Queen Victoria and Sir Jack' and such like.
I said that I would have nothing to do with it as I knew it was concerning the fabrication of the 'diary' that she was now involved with.
However,the rest of the band wrote some lines and I could'nt resist to pen some lines directed at our own Victoria herself which said:
Victoria,Victoria,the queen of them all,
of Sir jack she knows nothing at all!
I know you will be startled at this info but alas,it is true as true.
This info I gave to Shirley Harrison and she has not commented.
I believe she thinks I am nuts or else it is too simple and explanation for her.
Shirley has spoken with Victoria and says that she is a nice person and I believe that Victoria wrote her a letter also but I say to you that Victoria knows all about the diary and its origin and is keeping quiet as to not involve herself with it.
I asked Shirley to send me a transcript of Vic's letter but was told this would be (to the effect) underhanded.
I would love to see what Vic wrote...
Coming up on july 2 is Vic's 50th birthday,I shall call and wish her many happy returns and see what else she has to say about the diary.
I have not contacted her since that first phone call as I did not want to be seen as influencing her side of the story.
Let me think what else I can say of steven;
I believe that he lived for a time in Bradford and may have gone to school there for all I know.
I wonder,Where did AG go to school?
Were the classmates?
Were steven's mother and father friends of Billy Graham or Tony?
I should like to come to England once again and speak to all involved about the diary,if we could sit face to face and start at the begining,You would understand the whole business very well and would not doubt anything I say.
If we at the message board and beyond,could declare an amnesty from prosecution for Victoria and the likes,I'm sure we would hear the entire story.
I feel this is possibly the only way for the truth to come out.
As for me,I dont mind putting my head on the block for stating then truth right now!
if I was asked to sign an affidavit to my story,I certainly would!
I dont know where steven is now or even if he is still alive.
He does have a police record here in australia (for what crime I dont know)
and he spent some time in the 'Emu Plains Correctional Centre' in New south wales (west of Sydney).
I actaully visited him there with Victoria,who took me there.
This would have been around the early seventies.
Disjointed as this letter is,it is something for you to think about Peter.
Please do write me with any thoughts on the subject as I shall you.
regards,
steve powell
23-6-2001.
lets move to the present.
Todays date as i write this below is:
16-3-2002.
Peter Birchwood has done great detective work and send me the following info;
Steven Park
Born Lancaster.England,March 1952.
Son of;
Raymond J Park
Jean Watson,
Married in Lancaster,December 1950.
(end of Birchwoods info)
The Parks moved to Sydney,australia at a date i do not know but would suggest it would be around the early sixties.
I do not know if they immigrated or not.
At present i do not know his address or even if he is still alive.
I believe he would want money from the publishing of the diary and I suggest that someone find out the names of the receivers of Michael B's checks.
I have told of Victoria before this but lets update.
Victoria Courtney (maiden name) She tells me her name is now;
Victoria Vickery.
She told me her address is in the exclusive suburb of Wahroonga,north of Sydney.
I have scoured the white and yellow pages and can find nothing to match the name of Vickery in and around that area.
The third person in question is Anne Graham.
These three know all of the writing of the diary.
I believe that Steven Park went to england with the diary sometime in the early seventies.I would say 1972/73/74,This could be checked through the immigration dept.
I believe that he met Anne and that the diary was deposited with her at that time.
I believe that she did not tell Michael Barrett of the diary at that time as she would have to tell him of Steven and her relationship with him.
I suggest that the paper of the diary be forensically examined to ascertain if the paper is australian pulp.
Enough for now.
I have named names and stand by what i have said and shall cop whatever comes from the truth as i know it.
A question for all:
Has anyone besides Peter Birchwood and Shirley Harrison contacted anyone in australia?
If so,I ask them to disclose their information to those on this board,without fear or favour.
Bring out the dead and the living,it's time for action.
Only the brave and the foolish will get to the truth behind this monster.
I am both of these.
regards
steve powell. |
Author: Tee Vee
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 08:19 am | | A lovely bit o grissle to get our teeth into. yum yum. I like it, I like it very much. At least i might have some new books to read out of all this. I must dash though i have to work a 24 hour shift. To be continued ...
see ya sunday evening.
yours truly
Tee Vee |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 08:48 pm | | Hi Steve:
I appreciate your persistence in sharing information with us and hope that it does lead somewhere.
I questioned you in my last post about seeming inconsistencies in your story. There is another inconsistency in what you have just told us in your two posts of today.
You stated in your post of Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 07:58 am:
"Anne told me in 1969 that the diary was with her father in england."
But then you stated in your post of Saturday, 16 March 2002 - 07:58 am in regard to English-born Steve Park whom you have indicated in implicated in the forging of the Diary:
"I believe that Steven Park went to england with the diary sometime in the early seventies.I would say 1972/73/74,This could be checked through the immigration dept. I believe that he met Anne and that the diary was deposited with her at that time."
Again, Steve, what is the real story? Are you saying Anne Graham was lying when she said in Australia in 1969 that the Diary was at that time with her father in England? Did Anne give you misleading information in 1969? Do you believe instead that the Diary was created sometime in the period 1969-1974 in Australia and then taken to England?
Again, any clarification you can offer will help. I am really trying my hardest to go along with your story and to believe it has some credibility. Thanks for your help.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 10:47 am | | Hi Steve,
What would I take as evidence?
Well, it doesn't matter what I would take as evidence. But the diary investigators would need to be convinced by whatever you believe about the diary and the forgers. So for instance this might involve one of the forgers telling his/her story, including certain details of how and when the diary was created (what sources and materials were used and so on) that can then be checked and verified against the facts as they are known.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen Powell
Sunday, 17 March 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Dear Chris George,
yes,i am indeed saying that Anne Graham was lying when she said to me in Australia in 1969 that the Diary was at that time with her father in England.
yes,Anne did give me misleading information in 1969.
yes,i do believe that the Diary was created sometime in the period 1969-1974 in Australia and then taken to England.
On this last point,i feel that the diary may not have been in its full version at that time and was added to or pages removed by someone,possibly Michael Barrett.
regards
steve powell |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 18 March 2002 - 07:16 am | | Hi Steve:
Thank you for your message which helps to clarify what you are saying about the time frame of the forgery.
I have to wonder why Anne Graham would say in Australia in 1969 that the Diary was at that time with her father in England, a story that fits exactly with her recent contention that the Diary was in the possession of her father at that time, if the Diary did not, in 1969, exist. This is not to say that she did not in 1969 tell you this, and that you are not truthfully telling us what she told you at that time. I am just saying it is an odd coincidence that she would in 1969 "predict" what would later be her contention. It also occurs to me that if other people were involved in the forgery, i.e., Steven Park and Victoria Courtney (now Vickery), the Diary need not necessarily have ended up in the possession of the Grahams or the Barretts.
You ended your message with the statement, "i do believe that the Diary was created sometime in the period 1969-1974 in Australia and then taken to England. On this last point,i feel that the diary may not have been in its full version at that time and was added to or pages removed by someone,possibly Michael Barrett." Of course, we do know there are pages missing at the beginning of the ledger or commonplace book that contains the Diary, so we know that to that extent the book was tampered with, by someone, at some time. My impression though of the writing is that it is pretty consistent throughout, and written, I think, by one person, not by several, over, I would guess, a relatively short time period (a matter of a few days, weeks, or months) so I should doubt that another person or set of persons added to the Diary at a later time, years later, although I may be wrong about that.
Steve, your messages are valuable, and may help to finally solve this mystery, so please do keep in contact with us. I appreciate your recent communications with us.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 04:39 am | | Hi Steve:
Thanks for the kind words. I had a couple of problems with your material. Did you originally tell me that you were going around Australia with Park, singing and playing in the 1960's? AS he was born in 1952, that would surely make him very young. Can you expand on this? Could you also confirm how Victoria got in touch with Shirley Harrison. Did you give Shirley her address? I understood that you firstly got in touch with Shirley through Andy Aliffe. Could you explain how you knew Andy, whether you sent him an email or letter and what you initially said to him? It also seems that Mike Barrett has contacted Andy: somewhat of a surprise as there has never been any indication in the past that Mike and he were in communication. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Regretfully we can't trace Park's trips to the UK through Immigration. Such attempts would be unlawful and might end up in problems with the Home Office. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 05:38 am | | It's been suggested that one point in favour of Anne Graham is that she denies any connection with the Australian story submitted by Steve Powell. While making no comment on the likely truth or otherwise of this story, it is plain that although it sets the initial diary construction back to an unlikely period, ie the 1960's-70's, it makes it clear that the diary was a fake. If this story is true in part or whole then there would be every reason for AG to deny it especially as she is still associated with the diary insofar as appearing on TV shows as well as being involved with other projects.
If we accept Steve's story then a possible scenario would be that the idea of a JtR diary was talked about during AG's Australian residence and some work was done on writing it. The project may have fallen into abeyance when she returned to the UK but again, if Steve is to be believed, some substantial part of it had been written.
We know when the diary actually appeared and was seen by Doreen Montgomery which I take to be the incontrovertable first public showing. Before that is it possible that it existed, half-written in the Barrett house and was completed by the Barrett's at a period when they needed money. This would therefore make it possible that Mike's only part in the production was to add those bits which he thought worthwhile ("costly intercourse" etc.) Other details in the story would readily fit into this scenario of a fake diary of JtR written by a group of friends in Australia, half-forgotten until money worries brought up the need to obtain cash from some source and the provenance being in the hands of someone who really didn't understand what he was doing.
But all of this rests on whether Steve Powell's story is true or false and so I would really like to know much more about it.
And it is still a mystery why Mike should get in touch with Andy Aliffe when he has other contacts. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 06:25 am | | Hi Peter B,
Not that much of a mystery surely? Considering what Andy Aliffe does for the C&D Club, and his input with Mike Barrett's 1999 interview there?
'...is it possible that [the diary] existed, half-written in the Barrett house and was completed by the Barrett's at a period when they needed money.'
What would the implications be in terms of the penman, pen and ink? Is the diary wholly, or even partly, in Anne's handwriting do you think? Or was it started by a mystery penman, with additional bits by Anne or Mike, or even farmed out to Gerard Kane for completion? Was the same ink used throughout, or did Mike manage to find one that was indistinguishable from the original?
All questions to ponder.
Hi Tee Vee,
Keith Skinner requested that I put the latest info on the boards, so I merely reported it exactly as Keith gave it to me.
What Mike told Andy over the phone is all anyone seems to know at present.
But RJ Palmer did remark that Mike had been quiet lately. Maybe that's about to change.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 07:34 am | | | Caz--As you know, there was a crash on this site a few months back and some of the archives were lost. Do you happen to have transcripts of any of the material from the Maybrick board from that time? There's something in regards to Steve story that I wanted to look up. Let me know, and I'll email you privately if that's not a problem. Cheers, RP |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 07:57 am | | | welcome back John. I remember reading in one of the florence maybrick trial transcripts that she owned a series of diary`s that later in the case where changed from florence`s diary`s to just the Maybrick diary`s later in the case. But If Mike is foolish enough to of written an aditional 40 pages he must only be doing it to prove he is (which i find hard pill to swallow)The forger? or that the forger is still alive and in contact? If this news hadn`t of come about i might still believe in the diary. But it seems a little silly now. I`ll keep my ears on the wall, and hope to hear the updates of this twisty winding subject. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 08:26 am | | Hi RJ,
As soon as the site got back up, I re-posted all the material I still had at that time on to the appropriate diary boards.
All the diary posts that were lost (apart from a handful that I didn't get to copy before the site crashed), would have been sent to Keith. I don't know if he has kept them all or how accessible they are, but if you email me with more details of your specific request, I can pass it on to him.
Why not also ask Steve himself for clarification on whatever part of his story you wanted to read again?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 12:00 pm | | No need for the diary to have been written in its present form by a group in Australia: that would be too Feldmanesque. If (and I emphasise that word) there is truth in Steve Powell's story then it could have been composed there.
That composition might later have been used as the basis for the diary that we know and love today.
Maybe Mike is getting concerned about the mileage that his ex-wife is getting out of Maybrick and the Diary.
RJ:
I've got archived about 6,000 board messages most of which are diary related. I'm just checking through the 71 that either mention SP or are by him. I'll put a couple below but maybe if you can tell me what you want I can find it.
Shirley Harrison 29/6/2000 (this is a long message and this is only part. If the full thing has vanished, let me know and I'll repeat the whole thing.
On the evening of Saturday August 7th 1999, during a Cloak
and Dagger meeting (Sue and Andy Parlour were speaking) Andy
Aliffe gave Keith
Skinner a copy of an Email he had received from Australia.
This came from theatre manager, Steve Powell and read:
"Dear Andy, The reference to Anne being a nurse in Asutralia
is mentioned in Feldman's book 'The Final Chapter' (page
166) 'This is me
in Australia when I was a nurse.' When I first read this it
triggered off something in my memory that I had almost
forgotten. The years were 1967-1971. I was playing in a
rock band called 'The Mint' in Sydney. One of the band,
David Dalton, waqs taking out a nurse who was working at
Sutherland Hospital in Caringbah, south of Sydney. David
had a thing for nurses and we were often parked at the
hospital, meeting or dropping
off nurses.
One night, dropping off several of them a conversation
occurred that caught my attention. The nurses were talking
about another nurse at the
hospital. The nurse had told them about knowledge she had
of the identity of Jack the Ripper and of a diary or letters
that came from her father. She was very excited about this
and was going to "write a book or something". She swore the
other nurses to secrecy. I think some of the girls had
actually seen or read this material. Well, I was stunned..I
had read every book I could get on "Rip" and this statement
was too close for comfort or luck!
I wanted to talk to the nurse herself and proposed to do so.
Before I had a chance I was told she had suddenly gone home
to England. I do
know that edavid was in contact with a girl named Anne in
England after this and that se was the 'love of his heart'.
There may be more to
tell. I shall try to contact my lost band members and
inquire of them. I would love to know if it was Anne Graham
or not. The
co-incidence is remarkable I feel. Well, Andy, got to go to
work now, keep cool....."
Saturday July 1st 2000
>From Keith Skinner To Steve Powell
Dear Steve
I've just caught up with your post of Saturday July 1st 2000
@ 02:40 am.
You should know that I'm afraid you face a Herculean task to
try and convince people of your veracity and credibility.
You are disadvantaged on several major counts:-
1) Melvin Harris has pronunced the Diary to be a modern
hoax.
2) It is impossible for the Diary to have existed prior to
1987. For it to have done so means that it is genuine.
3) Anne Graham has a track record for lying and deceiving.
The lady is discredited and her testimony is worthless.
4)Should you have the good fortune to locate anybody who can
support your story, it is extremely unlikely that that
person will be believed and certain contributors to this
board will doubtless suggest collusion.
Against this bleak and negative background, I have one point
I would be very grateful if you could clarify. My
understanding from Andy Aliffe is that initially he made
contact with you. You did not make contact with him because
you wanted to contact Paul Feldman, as has been suggested.
Is that the correct sequence of events?
Best wishes
Keith Skinner
I see that in the original posts from 2000 Steve was talking about a "David Dalton" who seems to have been concerned in much the same way as the later Steven Park. Are they, I wonder, the same man? I notice also that Steve says that he got in touch with Andy Aliffe because he wanted to contact Feldman. He says that he didn't know Andy at all which seems to conflict with Keith (above)
I also see that in a Jan 2001 post Steve says that at some point pre diary pub. he was in London 30th September 1993 with his daughter taking a Ripper walk and met Don Rumbelow who mentioned the emergence of the diary which had not then been published. Steve says that he told Don about the Australian diary connection. I believe that Stewart Evans asked Don about this and he could not remember the event. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 12:43 pm | | Hi Peter, Chris, All,
Peter wrote that, if Steve's story is true, in part or whole, then there would be every reason for Anne to deny it.
That's absolutely true. But if the fake diary was partially composed by a group of friends in Australia, then 'half-forgotten until money worries brought up the need to obtain cash from some source', causing Anne to remember the project, and decide to actually get the thing finished and written, finding suitable materials and roping Mike and a willing penman in to help, wasn't she - isn't she - taking one hell of a risk that one or more of these friends would come forward with verifiable details of the original idea and composition? That doesn't appear to have happened - yet. But Anne's denial, and continued 'mileage' as Peter puts it, would fall rather flat if it did.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 12:58 pm | | Hi, all:
Caz wrote--
"But if the fake diary was partially composed by a group of friends in Australia, . . . wasn't she - isn't she - taking one hell of a risk that one or more of these friends would come forward with verifiable details of the original idea and composition? That doesn't appear to have happened - yet."
Oh, then what do you call Steve Powell's revelations if not someone from her past coming forward with details--albeit yet to be verified--of the original idea and composition? That her past is starting to creep up on her. (It it is, that is!)
While Steve Powell's story remains perplexing and contradictory, and I had forgotten his original mention of a "David Dalton" who prefigured "Steve Park" in the story, there is something insidious about the story. It would be ironic if the Grannie Formby-Alice Yapp story told by the Graham family that Feldman uses to verify Anne's link to the Diary, as if that makes the document genuine, provided Anne her entrée into a scheme of thinking James Maybrick a candidate for being Jack the Ripper, and to forging the Diary of Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 March 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Hi Chris,
But that's the point - the details of Steve's story have yet to be verified. That's why I used the word verifiable. We don't even know if Steve was one of a group of friends that included Anne Barrett and talked about a diary of JtR. At least, I don't.
So I don't call Steve's revelations anything yet.
We don't know if he is someone from Anne's past coming forward.
We don't know if Anne was involved in any such story or the forgery.
And so we don't know if her past is starting to creep up on her.
But I don't think I'd risk thrusting myself into the limelight, trying to make money out of such a project (which is what Peter B suggests Anne did), if it began with others who have made nothing out of it and who could blow away my 'in the family' story at any time.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 08:42 am | | Hi All,
Any more thoughts on Anne's new provenance story, in light of the latest from Steve Powell and Mike?
RJ,
Do you still think Anne had no involvement in the diary's creation, while Mike was the one who provided 'O costly...' and basically handled the finished document's journey from composer/penman to public debut?
Do you still think Anne's new provenance story, including a spurious Formby/Yapp link, 'evolved over time', essentially springing from a need to counteract the effects of Mike's confession, but only beginning to form in her mind after that long phone call with Feldy provided her with a basis for it?
And have you been able to work out how much time this gave Anne, from realising that Feldy was already hooked on the idea that she and/or her family must be involved, to when she made her full 'in the family' statement, from which she has not wavered since?
Interestingly, Chris says it would be ironic if the Formby/Yapp story, passed down by the Graham family, provided Anne with the original idea of turning Maybrick into the Ripper, and writing his diary.
So, on the one hand, while a genuine Formby/Yapp link of some kind would appear to be a bit of a disaster for anyone arguing against Anne's involvement in forging the diary, it seems it can be absorbed into an argument for Anne's involvement, and suggested as the basis for it.
But this is not a new suggestion. I asked if it was feasible over two years ago. I also wondered why, if true, Anne didn’t exploit such a link to the full, right from the start, instead of going with the daft 'man down the pub' alternative, only to have to change it back again later, thereby losing credibility along with any advantage her 'in the family' story might have had in 1992 from a real oral tradition, however tenuous, linking the Grahams with Battlecrease.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 March 2002 - 09:48 am | | Hi, Caz:
I don't think Anne's "in the family for years" story would have been much of an advantage in 1992 compared with 1994 since the Diary would have still have been a document without a provenance, a clear link to James Maybrick, just as the "got it from a man down the pub" did not provide a proper provenance. The big difference in 1994 compared with 1992 was that you had an author of the likes of Paul Feldman who was ready to pounce on any crumb of information if he thought it would provide a link, however hazy and tenuous, with the Maybricks. Observers such as John Omlor and myself throw up our hands at the nature of the scraps of "evidence" that Mr. Feldman turfed up, but to adapt a quote of Melvin Harris's, it was good enough for Feldy. 
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 12:09 am | | Hi Chris
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this question. Why do you think Anne incorporated into her 'in my family for years story' that she had given the 'diary' to Tony Devereux to pass on to Mike?
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 03:28 am | | Hi Paul:
You asked for my thoughts on the question of why Anne incorporated into her "in my family for years story" that she had given the Diary to Tony Devereaux to pass on to Mike. Paul, I think the answer this is clear enough. Somehow, the fact that Tony had the Diary and gave it to Mike had to be explained away. So Anne had to explain how the Diary went from her family to Tony. As an aside, because, as she tells it, the Diary was given to Tony to help give Mike a writing project, this also helps distance Anne from the Diary... as she tells it she had no interest in the Diary and no interest in Jack the Ripper. However, the scenario of a wife giving a Diary to a pub friend of her husband's to give to her husband without any explanation ("Do something with it!" as Tony reputedly told Mike) is rather a tortured, unlikely one. But it's one of among many of the strange things in this saga, isn't it? The fact of Mike getting the Diary from Tony Devereaux, the mate down at the pub that he reportedly hardly knew, if that is what happened, is odd enough but for wife Anne Barrett to give the Diary to Tony to give to her husband Mike Barrett is even odder. Does the oddity of this aspect of Anne's story indicate that it's a fabrication?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 08:31 am | | Hi Chris
Many thanks for those thoughts.
You write, ‘Somehow, the fact that Tony had the Diary and gave it to Mike had to be explained away.’
Do you therefore accept that Tony Devereux did have the diary and did give it to Mike?
Cheers
Paul |
|
|
|
|
