|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 03 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE- EVALUATION!:
Archive through 03 April 2002
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 08:37 am |        | Hi Chris,
You wrote:
'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.'
But the point I was making was in response to your own, about the Formby/Yapp link, if true, possibly being what sparked off an idea of Anne's to write a diary connecting the Maybrick case with JtR.
With respect, it's not what you think the advantage would have been. We have to try to look at it from Anne's point of view in 1992. And if she wasn't planning to utilise a genuine link - if it was the very one that caused the diary to be written in the first place - to suggest that the diary had travelled from a member of the Battlecrease household in 1889 to a member of the Barrett household, from which the diary was to emerge into the public domain, why on earth not? It makes no sense to me.
You may think, looking back at the whole diary saga, that there is little to choose between that and the 'man down the pub' story - ie no clear link to James Maybrick in either. But as (or if) the diary is a forgery, there won't be a clear link, will there? And so any forger in their right mind has to do the best they can with what they've got, right? So don't we have to look for a very good reason why Anne, if she was involved in the forgery, chose to ignore the former story in favour of the latter - at least until finally prompted by Feldy over two years later?
And if you find the basic Devereux story, as told by Mike, 'odd enough', and Anne's incorporation of it into her own 'in the family' story 'even odder', I can only echo Paul's question, and ask again why you think Anne did it. Why did she run with such an 'odd' tale? We only have Mike's word for 'the fact that Tony had the Diary and gave it to' him, so why would Anne have to 'explain' anything away? She was already announcing to the world that Mike had just made a false confession, so what would it matter if she also claimed he had lied with his 'odd' yarn of getting the diary from Devereux?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 08:39 am | | Sorry Paul - posts crossed.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 10:10 am | | Hi, Paul and Caz:
Paul, you have said yourself that the one stable element in the stories told by Mike and Anne is the part whereby Tony Devereaux gave the Diary to Mike in the Saddle pub, Bootle. So I am inclined to think that really happened.
Caz, to answer your question, as I stated before, my current thinking is that it would not have benefited Anne to come up with her in the family for years story in 1992 because as I sense it she knew then and knows now that the Diary is not what it claims to be. Again, my notion is that the Alice Yapp - Grannie Formby story, and maybe the visits to the grave of Florie's lover, if they occurred, are what helped inspire this forgery, what helped foster the idea that James Maybrick could be Jack the Ripper, so that Anne and others were inspired to forge the Diary.
Caz you wrote: "And if she wasn't planning to utilise a genuine link - if it was the very one that caused the diary to be written in the first place - to suggest that the diary had travelled from a member of the Battlecrease household in 1889 to a member of the Barrett household, from which the diary was to emerge into the public domain, why on earth not? It makes no sense to me."
What I am saying is that Anne well knows that the Diary did not travel from Battlecrease to the Barretts. The only possible connection of the Grahams with the Battlecrease household is with Alice Yapp possibly going to the trial of Florie Maybrick with Grannie Formby, a tale that later helped to inspire the forgery. No transfer of the Diary to Grannie Formby took place. It is only Feldman who implies that such a chain of possession took place.
I hope the above helps.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 11:53 am | | Sorry, Chris, it doesn't really help me at all.
You are saying on the one hand that you are inclined to think Devereux really did give the diary to Mike (the same Tony Devereux you just described as 'the mate down at the pub that [Mike] reportedly hardly knew').
But next you say that, if there is any truth in the Formby/Yapp story etc, you think this helped inspire Anne and others to forge the diary (the same Anne whose husband 'reportedly hardly knew' the guy you believe gave him the diary).
So are you now arguing that the reports that Anne and Mike hardly knew Tony must be completely wrong? Otherwise, what was Tony doing, giving Mike a diary that Anne and others had forged?
I do understand your belief, that Anne well knew the diary didn't get transferred to Granny Formby, and thence to the Grahams. What I don't understand is why you think someone who could be sufficiently inspired by the Formby/Yapp family story to forge this document would have needed Feldy to inspire in her the idea for how it could have got from Battlecrease, via the same Yapp, then the same Formby, to the Barretts.
Did a  suddenly come on, with Anne saying "Of course, Paul. why didn't I think of that before? Thanks mate. Can I use that one?"
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Hi Chris
Thanks for that. What I am driving at though, is how you equate Mike getting the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux with Mike being an active participant in the forgery.
Let me explain. Scenario One: Mike knows the ‘diary’ is a forgery and, indeed, had actively participated in the forgery by supplying the Crashaw quote. If he received the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux, it was received only in the course of one member of the forgery team handing the completed item over to another member of the forgery team. Why, then, would Anne have felt obliged to incorporate this in her ‘in my family for years’ story?
Scenario Two. Mike didn’t know the ‘diary’ was a forgery and was given the ‘diary’ by Tony Devereux. When inventing her story Anne therefore stayed as close to the truth as possible and claimed that she had given the ‘diary’ to Devereux.
The trouble is, if Tony Devereux really did give Mike the ‘diary’, it very seriously raises the question of whether or not Mike (and, if we dismiss Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story as an opportunistic tale, then Anne herself) actually had anything whatsoever to do with the forgery – with attendant problems with the Sphere book and Mike’s alleged discovery of the Crashaw quote at Liverpool library.
I can buy Anne inventing a story to stay close to the truth. I don’t find it so easy to buy Anne incorporating Tony Devereux into her story if she and Mike had forged the ‘diary’ or participated in the forgery. I wondered how this fitted in with your thinking. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Hi Paul and Caz:
Again, as you have said, Paul, Mike has elicited little detailed and verifiable knowledge that the Diary was forged or how it was forged. He has come up with a scenario for him dictating it to Anne to write down but it doesn't fully jive with the facts as we know it in terms of buying the ink and the scrapbook, etc. It seems more that he came up with a scenario for the forgery as best he could to fit the circumstances. I thus think that when Mike took the thing to Doreen Montgomery in London he probably thought it was the real McCoy and all he really knew was that he got it from a mate down at the pub. As for Mike finding the Crashaw quote, I think it was a lucky catch much as the Eleanor Rigby buried in Woolton churchyard opposite the church hall where John met Paul leading to the formation of the Beatles was not, Paul maintains, the inspiration for "Eleanor Rigby." Sometimes bizarre coincidences do occur!
Another point to consider is that according to Feldy, Barrett himself at one point in 1994 seemed to be saying he believed the Diary came from Anne, aren't I right?
Sorry to be shifting around in my beliefs as to the manner in which events unfolded but I am, as you see, changing my views as I try to reason things out to myself. Some of my thinking might be influenced by the possibility that Steve Powell's story of a forgery perhaps originating with Anne in Australia might be true. If Anne was behind it, I think her giving the Diary to Tony could have been just as good a way of introducing the Diary to the world, even if the idea that such a circumstance ("the mate down the pub") reveals a naivité on her part.
As I have been stating, the only role that Grannie Formby and the burial plot of Henry Flinn, Florie's alleged lover, played was inspiration for the forgery, and those ingredients were not viewed as possible "evidence" of how the Diary got to the Barretts until Paul Feldman in 1994 began to see them that way.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 22 March 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Chris--Hi. The problem I have with the idea that Graham family traditions somehow inspired Anne Graham to write the Maybrick diary is that we have no real evidence that there were any family traditions along these lines. Research hasn't proven a Yapp-Formby link. Nor is there any evidence that Henry Flinn sired a child with Florie Maybrick. So it seems to me that we have no way of knowing whether these 'traditions' had been in the Graham family for years or whether they were invented by AG with Feldy's unwitting help in 1994---after the Maybrick diary was already out in public for a couple of years. I believe the latter is likely to be true. As for Flinn, all we have is a vague memory of Anne visiting his grave as a child. Feldman then supplied the theory that Flinn sired a child with Florie. No proof of this---it seems to have developed out of thin air.
It might be worth remembering that Paul Feldman also mentions in his book [but doesn't give us details] that he at one time entertained the idea that the Maybrick watch really came from Albert's wife! [p. 165] Now we have the diary really coming from Anne. I take it all with a grain of salt. Indeed, one of the oddest features of the Final Chapter is that Feldy is convinced that everyone is lying to him and hiding the truth about their pasts. Considering this, I am very skeptical that Paul Feldman somehow managing to discover that the diary really came from Anne. The "new" provenance emerged when Feldy was in serious need of a provenance and Anne was wanting to convince him that [to use her words] "it has nothing to do with the Barrett family. Please let them be." [Feldy p 168].
Best wishes, RJ Palmer
PS. Caz--You asked me to elaborate what I meant about Anne's story 'developing over time'. Here goes.
1. AG hadn't talked to Feldman in 6-8 months. Meanwhile, Feldy was dealing with Mike and even spending time at his house. Mike was 'dropping clues' [including statements that the diary was connected to Anne] and Feldy was busy investigating everyone. Mike's sister got fed up, called Feldman and read him the riot act. Feldman wouldn't budge. Upset, the sister called AG. Only then did she contact Feldman in order to have him "back off."
2. Meeting One. A four hour telephone conversation; Feldy accuses AG of being connected to the diary. Anne doesn't give a provenance, but agrees to meet Feldy. Since the conversation was four hours in length, I'm assuming that Feldy probably discussed some of the 'clues' that Mike had been dropping--Silk House Court, Anne's grandfather the prison warder, etc.
3. Meeting two. Feldy and AG meet at Moat house. Swap stories. Talk 3-4 hours, have drinks. Feldy shows AG the "Mrs. Graham" bit from Morland. Still no provenance. According to Feldman, Anne tells him at this meeting that she gave the diary to Tony D. But not where it came from. Also the curious statement: "Not until my father is buried will I tell you what I know". Which still seems to me to be a damned strange statement even considering what we now know or think we know. What was so awful about AG's story that it had to wait until Billy's death [even though it didn't, of course]? Was it really such an invasion of privacy to ask Billy Graham to remember seeing a scrap book back in the late 1940s? Heck, it wasn't even connected to his family really, but from a step-mom. Why would there have been a "barrage of questions?" Was Anne originally going to tell Feldman something else?
4. A third conversation between Feldy & AG a few days later. This time Anne gives the provenace story about seeing the diary in a trunk 1968/69. She also suggests the story that Edith's mother, Elizabeth, was a good friend of Alice Yapp. [But she doesn't actually give this as the provenance]. Note: it took two years and 3 long conversations for this simple statement to come out. Why?
5. Few days later. The Billy Graham interview. It's difficult to tell from the transcripts in Feldman's book what exactly was going on. Seems like a combination of old vague memories and Feldman asking leading questions. Billy seems to remember seeing a book sometime around the end of WW2. As Peter Birchwood has noted, it isn't even a very good description of the Maybrick Diary.
6. [The following weeks] Feldman seems to still be looking into other provenance possibilities after this interview. Following Billy's funeral, Anne tells Feldman an old childhood memory of visiting the grave of Henry Flinn. [p. 209] But this has to be seperate provenance theory than the Yapp-Formby one, as it follows a different family line.
7. Eventually, the Yapp-Formby provenance seems to be the accepted one by the diary's supporters. Anne plumps for it in her biography of Florie, but oddly still puzzles over the Flinn story [Last Victim, xxi.]
It short, I see no reason to think that AG had a planned or well-thought-out provenance. Nor am I convinced that she even came forward in order to supply the diary with a more believable past. It's all rather vague and confused and I find it frustrating that its all based on 'family stories' that can't be proven or disproven. I don't believe the story because I think the evidence shows the diary is more recent. Thus, I'm still skeptical that Anne Graham is connected to the Maybrick diary. To me, Mike was the one pushing it for two years and she seems like a late arrival on the scene. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 01:27 am | | Hi Chris
For goodness sake don’t apologise for modifying your thinking as you assess the data. That’s what we’re all supposed to do.
So, on the face of it, Mike really did believe that the ‘diary’ was genuine when he took it to Doreen Montgomery and was therefore not involved in the forgery. His ownership of the Sphere book was pure coincidence and he did not provide the Crashaw quote. Anne’s ‘in my family for years’ story, as succinctly argued by R.J.P. was an opportunistic invention to secure some of the talked about film money, and she incorporated Mike receiving the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux into her story because that is what actually happened.
We therefore don’t have the foggiest idea where the ‘diary’ came from except that Mike did get it from ‘a bloke down the pub’. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
As you say, though, Anne could have been party to the forgery and given the ‘diary’ to Tony Devereux as an expedient way of getting it to Mike.
R.J.P.
The problem I have with the idea that Graham family traditions somehow inspired Anne Graham to write the Maybrick diary is that we have no real evidence that there were any family traditions along these lines.
The problem is that a tradition can be real, but have little (and sometimes perhaps no) foundation in reality. So, although no historical basis can be found for the tradition, the tradition in some form could still have existed and been the inspiration for Anne’s story. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 02:28 am | | Hi, RJ:
I agree that it was my earlier view that the Grannie Formby-Alice Yapp story and the story of the visits to Henry Flinn's grave were conveniently conjured up to give some type of credence to a Maybrick connection for the Grahams. It's just that in thinking there might actually be some connection between Anne and the forgers rather than Mike and Anne and the forgers that I have begun to think of why Maybrick should have been put in the frame. A family tradition of a link to the Maybrick Case could have been the beginning of the idea to make Maybrick the Ripper. I don't know if that is exactly the way it happened but what other explanation do we have for why Anne, if she was a prime mover in the forgery, would pick Maybrick? Again I keep thinking about Anne's repeated claims not to be interested in the Ripper, but then the supposed admissions of she and her father of Maybrick connections in their closet--one of them the alleged existence of the Diary in their closet!!! There seems to be a reason why she would want to both distance herself from the Ripper and also claim a connection to the Maybrick-Ripper world and that contradiction needs to be explained. Maybe it all comes down to money, I don't know... an insidious ingredient that is always a good barometer for why individuals are seen to act in an odd way.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 07:00 am | | Hi All,
Thanks Chris and RJ for your thoughts.
I just had a look at Feldy and Shirley's books to see if I could narrow down for myself the time it took for Anne to go from Feldy's inspiration to her statement, in which she finally told all she has ever claimed to know about the diary's origins. I thought it was going to be unclear and far from easy, and felt guilty for having asked you to come up with dates for me, following your belief that Anne's story 'evolved over time', suggesting to me several weeks at least.
In fact it took me very little time to find the two dates I was after, so now I feel even more guilty - I could have done it myself and saved you the trouble! 
The four hour phone call was, according to Feldy, on 20th July 1994.
Anne's statement came, according to Shirley, on 31st July 1994 - just 11 days later!
11 days, from when Anne first heard all Feldy's ideas first-hand about how she and/or her family must be connected with the diary somehow, to when she came out with the full story, and even less time, again according to Feldy, to come up with the family tradition that Edith Formby's mother accompanied Alice Yapp to Florie's trial.
I don't call that 'evolving over time'. What did Anne do, RJ, immediately after that long call? Check the census records to see if she could find someone connected with Battlecrease and suspicious behaviour, and someone suitable from her own family background, who lived close enough to one another during the right period so she could invent a family story connecting them, that she could ask her father to support? And what was this, if not deliberately giving Feldy his route for the diary from Battlecrease, via Granny Formby and the Grahams?
I've always had a problem with why Feldy couldn't see that the Formby/Yapp link and his theory about Anne's blood tie with Florie aren't compatible. I've also had a problem with why an intelligent woman like Anne wouldn't have seen that too - if she had pulled a fast one with her quickly improvised Formby/Yapp tale. Surely she would have pulled Feldy up sharp and stopped him from making this boob. While I can believe that he was by this time going down as many avenues as possible, not appreciating or caring if they led in different directions, I can't see her going along with him - unless she had been telling the truth as far as she knew it, about the diary and the various stories in her family, and was genuinely interested in having the gaps filled in, which could lead to some things being confirmed and others thrown out.
But of course, Anne's story can't be true, can it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 09:13 am | | | Caz--I'm not trying to be funny but shouldn't that read '11 days and 2 years'? But either way, I find it strange that it took three marathon conversations with Paul Feldman... who was already convinced that Anne was connected to the diary... to drag out a simple statement. It makes me suspect that Anne more or less bungled her way into the provenance story. But why do you feel that Anne Graham would have had to have "looked up census records" or anything else? All she told Feldman was that she had seen it in a box and knew "very little else". This was the third meeting. It's not that anything has been confirmed by census records or research, has it? All we have is Anne's story and some cloudy, unproven story that links the diary to Grammy Formby. Anne didn't say that it came from Grammy Formby, though she did say there was a family tradition. So how can you convince me that it isn't possible that Paul Feldman didn't inadvertantly supply this one during his interview with Billy? Especially since Feldy had similar theories of "secret Maybrick connections" involving Mike Barrett, Albert Johnson, Albert's wife Valerie, etc? It seems too convenient that it worked out the way it did. I also don't see anything so dastard or awful about Anne's current story that justifies all the past secrecy from Mike, Scotland Yard, the media, the early diary investigator's, etc. The 'awful family secret' element of Anne's provenance just seems a method of explaining away the two years of silence. Too many hurdles for a tired fellow like me to leap over. Cheers, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 23 March 2002 - 04:08 pm | | Hi, RJ and Caz:
First, isn't the "awful family secret" part of the melodrama that Feldman conjured up in the total hocus pocus of loose threads and rumor that he calls a book? 
Next, I agree with you, RJ, that no delving into census records was needed for Anne to mention the story about Grannie Formby and Alice Yapp. So what that Grannie and Alice lived a few streets away? Caz, you make a point of this just in the same way you make a point of it being a tremendous revelation that Crashaw had a Whitechapel connection, as if the Diary forgers also researched that. Well, they might or they might not. Coincidences do happen, just like my example of song by McCartney, "Eleanor Rigby" not being connected, Paul says, to the gravestone of Eleanor Rigby in the churchyard in Woolton near where Paul met John.
Now another coincidence may be that the Maybricks and Jack the Ripper lived in the same city. It wouldn't surprise me. Liverpool was and is a big city with connections to a number of famous or well known people. Tumblety and James Kelly had Liverpool connections, and so may some unknown person who was Jack the Ripper and who was not James Maybrick.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 24 March 2002 - 05:26 am | | Hi Chris, RJ, Caz
Caz: You wrote; I've always had a problem with why Feldy couldn't see that the Formby/Yapp link and his theory about Anne's blood tie with Florie aren't compatible. I think Feldy did recognise that incompatibility and obliquely referred to it when speculating that it was odd for Edith Formby to refer to her own mother as Granny Formby and wondering if it was a reference to Florence.
That Elizabeth Formby was ‘a good friend’ of Alice Yapp seems highly questionable, though Billy said that somebody he took to be Alice Yapp was a frequent visitor to the house in the 1920s? What were Alice Yapp’s movements after the trial? Did she still in Liverpool? Could she really have been this visitor? Otherwise, Billy was simply recalling something he was told by his sister or granny or by someone, or it was something he overheard people talking about (Feldy, pg.176). The core of the story seems to be that Elizabeth Formby travelled to the trial with Alice Yapp. And indeed she may have done, especially if they lived in the same vicinity. And I don’t think their living in close proximity is therefore something one should easily dismiss as a coincidence, despite Eleanor Rigby.
I, too, don’t think there is an mystery attached to Anne’s actions during the two years prior to her marathon telephone conversation with Feldy. Basically we have three options: 1. Anne didn’t know where the ‘diary’ came from except the Mike got it from Tony Devereux. 2. Anne knew Mike got the ‘diary’ from Tony Devereux because she had given it to him to give to Mike so that Mike wouldn’t pester Billy Graham about it. And 3. Anne knew the ‘diary’ was a forgery because participated in its creation. In none of these cases would Anne have had any reason or incentive to behave in any way differently from the way she did behave. Why, then, does anyone perceive her behaviour as odd or strange or mysterious?
The crucial question is why Anne decided to tell the truth after she’d met Feldy. And here we have various hypotheses, not least that it was an opportunistic invention to lay claim to film monies or Anne’s own given reason, namely that Billy had encouraged her to meet and talk with Feldy. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 06:44 am | | Hi All,
Hi RJ,
Yes, in all three of Paul's above options, Anne would indeed have had '11 days and 2 years' to think about what she could say if she ever decided to contradict or add anything to Mike's original story, that he was given the diary by Tony D and more or less left to get on with it.
But you seemed to be of the opinion that Anne had no connection, neither wanted any, with the diary until the summer of 1994, between late June and late July, when Mike's confession and her long phone call with Feldy combined to give her both motive and inspiration for claiming the opposite. Is there any reason why you now think Anne may have been thinking about telling an 'in the family' story during the two years leading up to Mike's first confession?
And I didn't say Anne had to check how close Formby and Yapp had ever lived. It just seems a sensible and obvious precaution if you are making something up that ripper investigators are bound to look into. What if Formby had turned out to be provably nowhere near Liverpool when Florie's trial was taking place? Or hadn't moved to the area until much later, making a connection with anyone whose business placed them in 1889 Battlecrease highly unlikely? The fact that Formby and Yapp were found to have lived so close to one another doesn't make the oral tradition true - it just means it can't be discounted as false. It's up to you to decide how chancy a story it was for Anne to make up without doing any research.
Hi Chris,
You, on the other hand, are now of the opinion, on re-assessing the evidence, that Mike knows nothing, and that Anne may have been involved with others in the forgery, the inspiration for which could have come from such oral Graham family traditions. Initial caution making her steer away from giving this fraudulent document a provenance connecting herself and her family directly with it, she instead takes it to Tony D and asks him to give it to an unsuspecting Mike, so at least any money made from it will be theirs, and if anyone proves it a modern fake they can both deny any knowledge, Mike legitimately.
That's fine, except that Anne could not have anticipated Tony dying. So, Chris, did Tony know anything or not when he gave the diary to Mike and left him to it? If he did, how much did he know, and how were he and Anne planning to stop Mike revealing where he got it from? And what would have happened then?
But if Tony didn't know anything, how could Anne be sure that he would keep quiet about where he got it from when Mike asked, as he inevitably would? And if she was involved in forging the diary, and Tony hadn't died, what then?
In short, if Mike knew nothing, and if Tony hadn't died, and if the diary had immediately been proved a very recent forgery, how would a guilty Anne have had a prayer of extricating herself?
Lastly Chris, what about that remark Tony allegedly made when Mike kept pestering him for info, about looking to his own family? If you now believe that Mike knew nothing, doesn't this remark make absolute sense and have a ring of truth about it? And wouldn't it explain why 'Barrett himself at one point in 1994 seemed to be saying he believed the Diary came from Anne'?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 10:42 am | | Hi, Caz:
As you indicated in the last part of your quote, the reported remark of Tony Devereaux's as well as Mike's own statement that the Diary had come from Anne, both seem to indicate that Anne did indeed give the Diary to Devereaux. No, Anne could not have anticipated that Tony would die, and maybe she hoped that no indication that the Diary had come from her would ever surface.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 11:46 am | | Thanks for that, Chris.
But I do wonder then, how Anne could realistically have 'hoped that no indication that the Diary had come from her would ever surface', all the while Tony was alive and no one expected him to die.
Let's think through the options. Anne gives the fake diary to Tony to give to an unsuspecting Mike.
Mike naturally asks questions, Tony remains alive, and whether he knows anything more about the diary's origins or not, either (i) stays silent or (ii) says he got the diary from Anne.
If Tony stays silent, Mike does what he does and eventually brings the diary to London to try to get it published. He says he got it from Tony, who either (i) stays silent or (ii) says he got the diary from Anne.
The diary is investigated and (i) proven to be a forgery, (ii) suspected of being a forgery or (iii) thought to be possibly genuine. In cases (i) or (ii), Tony can either (i) stay silent or (ii) say he got the diary from Anne.
Which do you think he would do, Chris?
Only in case (iii) would Tony be relatively safe staying silent. But why would he, and how long could he keep it up?
Do you see Anne's problem?
Which brings us back to the heart of the matter. It's almost impossible for me to imagine a scenario, which encompasses the Mike knew nothing theory, in which it would not have eventually come out that Anne had given Tony the diary to give to Mike - if Tony hadn't died.
Which either makes Anne the most short-sighted forger in history, or not a forger at all, simply giving the diary to Tony as she said she did, to give Mike something to write about, naively never imagining that he would try to publish it with the result that they would both end up being suspected of forging the thing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 12:19 pm | | Hi Caz/Chris
May I just point out that Anne’s stated reason for giving the ‘diary’ to Mike was so that it would inspire him to research and write a novel. If this is true then Anne would not have anticipated Mike taking the ‘diary’ to a publisher and wouldn’t have thought what Tony Devereux would do if Mike did so.
(And Anne’s stated motive is valid whether the diary was an heirloom or something she forged.)
But this is one of the reasons why I have repeatedly asked how much effort you think went into creating a forgery that would deceive people. You see, if the ‘diary’ was created just to deceive Mike and inspire him to write a fiction, no really effort need have been taken to fool him. But if the ‘diary’ suggests that an effort was taken to create a document that would pass even basic professional analysis, than I would have to submit that the ‘diary’ wasn’t created to simply give Mike an inspirational kick in the pants.
Of course, if the ‘diary’ was created with the intention of deceiving experts then we can only assume that Tony Devereux was part of the forgery team and had a story prepared for when the questions came.
But if Tony Devereux was one of the forgers, he wasn’t given the ‘diary’ by Anne was he? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Hi Paul,
Quite.
And if Anne had knowingly given Mike, via Tony, a fake diary that she never really expected or wanted him to try to publish as the real thing, she could presumably have contacted Doreen on the quiet and explained what she had done and why, as soon as things looked like they were getting completely out of hand, with the possibility of experts becoming involved and people being accused of forgery and attempted fraud.
And I do have to wonder what kind of story Tony could have had ready, if he and Anne knew that Mike was bound to name him as the person who gave him the diary.
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 01:36 pm | | | If the Diary was given to D to give to M by A in order that he write a novel. If she had read the thing and it was known to be authentic, the Diary in itself was much more than B could ever produce and would make more money.Why create a fiction when you have evidence to answer one of the enigmatic questions of history.Where do you come up with a Maybrick as JTR.Surely not because he died and his wife was tried for murder. Do you start in Liverpool or Whitechapel? Out of all the people who have been named as suspects Maybrick seems to be a take off on Barnetts motive to kill in order to keep Kelly off the streets as opposed to killing out of jealousy.Out of all that has been written or known about JTR and those connected with the murders Maybrick is a shot out of the blue.You have to start with Maybrick, and those around him.If it was forged and it seems it was what shred of information gave the name Maybrick to the forger.Bury's wife at least wrote his name on doors for others to see.Wherever it came from there had to be a reason for the link, and from what I have read no link has been shown-that is if it is a new forgery. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:32 pm | | Hi, David:
The Ripper and Maybrick cases were close in time, one after the other in chronological time. Any student of the era would know this. Moreover, the centenary of the Whitechapel crimes took place in 1988, and of course the centenary of the Maybrick case the following year, 1989, which although not given so much publicity nationwide in the UK, was publicized on Merseyside, with a display and a recreation of Florie's trial in St. George's Hall. So the linking of the two cases really is no mystery, and someone quite easily could have made the connection and thought that Maybrick might make a plausible Ripper.
All the best
Chris |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 07:21 pm | | | Cris. Thanks for the information. I did not know that. It clears up a whole lot for me. David Rhea |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 25 March 2002 - 09:52 pm | | | Chris--The May 3rd date that ends the Maybrick diary is not without meaning. It is the last day Maybrick went to work at the Knowsley Buildings. This fact is made plain in Bernard Ryan's book. It is my opinion the story-line of the diary, which often revolves around Maybrick's time at work, indicates that the forgers had intended the Knowsley Buildings to be the implied provenance of the diary...not Battlecrease. Mike was the one that always said he "believed" that the diary came from the Knowsley Buildings. But note that Anne's provenance links the diary to Yapp and thus Battlecrease. This would throw the diary back to where Feldman would have wanted it. It helps the cause of the diary being 'genuine.' But the diary is not genuine. If this 'in the family' story inspired Anne's story, wouldn't she have made use of it as a provenance in writing the diary? Wouldn't she at least have meantioned Yapp in the diary? Personally, I see no reason to believe the diary came from Anne Graham, other than she says that it did. Besides, I'm entirely resistant to the idea that Mike could really have been a dupe for three or four years. I feel like I'm slowly being led to water here but I'm a stubborn mule and I refuse to drink JCheers, RP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 07:10 am | | Hi All,
Hi David,
If it 'clears up a whole lot' for you, are you any nearer deciding whether you think Anne, Mike or neither knows who was involved in creating the diary or when?
Hi Chris, RJ,
If the Formby/Yapp link had anything at all to do with inspiring Anne to create this diary, by herself or with friends, I still think we might have expected to see more use made of it, either as RJ suggests, in the text itself, or, as I have said, by offering it as the provenance in 1992 in preference to using the late Tony Devereux as the earliest known 'owner'.
RJ, you don't believe the diary came from Anne, and therefore the Formby/Yapp story in your view has to be pure invention on her part.
I don't like to dismiss the Formby/Yapp story as easily as you do, but at the same time I can't easily accept Chris' concept of Anne and friends using Mike as a patsy for a forgery created in the hope of deceiving experts and public alike, in order to make money. For one thing, I can't see how it would have worked if Tony had been alive when Mike took the diary to London and was asked where he got it from.
And, RJ, I'd like to put the same question to you as Paul put to Chris. If you think Mike knows the diary is a forgery and participated by supplying the Crashaw quote, then presumably he would have received the diary from Tony Devereux (if you believe he did) only in the course of one member of the team handing the finished product over to another member. So why do you think Anne chose to incorporate this in her ‘in my family for years’ story? Why would she deliberately associate herself and 'her' diary with Tony Devereux, if she knew, or suspected, that he was mixed up somehow with Mike and forgery? Any ideas?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:16 am | | Caz--Hi. That's not a particularly difficult question. When Mike was allegedly being honest and still claiming the diary was genuine he said the diary came from Devereux. What better way for Anne to undermine all of Mike's various stories than to say that she was the one that gave it to Devereux? Especially if her main motive was to give Feldman an 'out' for the diary still being genuine? Devereux wasn't around to contradict the story. Besides, Anne had already gone along with the 'bloke at the pub' provenance, didn't she? She had to incorporate it.
But look here, Paul Feldman had a theory that Albert Johnson's wife was connected to the watch. You don't believe that, do you? So why do you belive the Formby story when it came out of a private meeting between Anne and Paul Feldman? Certainly that must bother you to some extent? Belief is one thing, but if Anne is going to be able to stand up to what will no doubt be a difficult onslaught from Melvin Harris, [that is, if this new book thing is really in the works] then she will have to do better in the 'proof' department than she has managed so far. As Paul Begg has rightly said, there are unconfirmable family traditions in the real world, but since she hadn't told all she knows from the beginning, it seems to me that she is in an impossible position...particularly if she has no 'proof'.
It will be interesting to hear what Mike is up to these days. I had thought all the craziness was over, but evidently it's just beginning. Someone out there doesn't seem to be aware that a provenance is a delicate thing, and can't be turned on and off like a hot and cold water tap. Cheers, RP |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 08:31 am | | | Dear Caz; No it has not cleared that Stygian Stables morass of argument. I leave that to the experts.I can only read their arguments and bask in the Procrustaen bed they have created.Thanks for your post.You are a very astute person and an asset to these deliberations.Love David |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 10:19 am | | Hi RJ
A quick and hopefully not too rambling observation on your posts.
We have a ‘diary’ in which the handwriting (pending professional analysis) is neither Mike’s nor Anne’s. Mike has never been able to provide a coherent account of the conception and execution of the forgery, even though he has at times been desperate to do so, he has never revealed any knowledge of the Ripper or Maybrick case or the techniques of forgery, and the only story he has given was not supported by the auctioneers. The only evidence we have that apparently connects Mike to the ‘diary’ is his ownership of the Sphere book and the very dubious testimony of Alan Gray that Mike told him about the book and its significance in September 1994.
What real evidence is there that Mike ever knew anything about the origins of the ‘diary’?
The only consistent part of Mike’s story has been his claim to have received the book from Tony Devereux, a tale we can’t really dismiss because it has some slight support from Caroline Barrett and from Devereux’s possession of Mike’s copy of the Richard Whittington-Egan book.
Overall, I have to say than on the face of it Mike knew nothing about the origins of the 'diary' and probably did get it from Devereux, just as he's always said. Further, that Anne said she gave the ‘diary’ to Devereux to give to Mike because Mike did get it from Devereux.
According to Anne, she gave the ‘diary’ to Mike in the hope that it would inspire him to research and write a novel. Since she did not expect Mike to take the ‘diary’ itself to a publisher, she would not have expected anyone except Mike to be questioning Devereux. On the other hand, if the ‘diary’ was forged with the purpose of being sold, and if Anne was the forger or one of the forgers, she is unlikely to have given the ‘diary’ to Devereux to give to Mike and thus risked being revealed as the source of the 'diary' if the excrement hit the fan. And if Devereux was one of the forgers then Anne didn’t give him the ‘diary’ (in any sense other than one conspirator handing it over to another) and Mike did get it from Devereux. The question is, though, would Anne have allowed Mike to be duped into what might be a criminal act.
The absolutely crucial question is therefore whether you think the ‘diary’ was simply thrown together to do no more than fool Mike and pique his curiosity, or whether effort was taken to try and ensure that the ‘diary’ passed at least a low level professional critical examination. And I think you'll have to concede the latter - if only because a Victorian look-alike ink was chosen.
On balance and being completely open to persuasion, I have to say that I'd like to see some solid arguments for Mike being involved in the forgery. And I am frankly struggling toimagine Anne supporting any attempt to use her husband as a patsy.
I don't blame you for stubbornly refusing to drink from the pond, but I think you have to be careful that you're not denying that the pond is there.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 12:00 pm | | Hi RJ,
I understand your reasoning, that Anne picked up Mike's Devereux story to use with her own, because that was always the one he used when claiming not to know if the diary was genuine or not. But when you add:
'Besides, Anne had already gone along with the 'bloke at the pub' provenance, didn't she? She had to incorporate it',
I'm not so sure this is literally true. Surely she didn't claim to know where Mike got the diary from, only that he arrived home with it one day, saying that Tony had given it to him. Slight difference there.
So do you think this was all Anne did know at first? And what else do you think she had found out, or suspected, by the time she came up with her own version of events in July 1994?
You then ask why I 'believe' the Formby story when it came out of a private meeting between Anne and Paul Feldman. All I said was that I don't find it as easy as you do to dismiss, not that I accept it without question. Everything about Anne's story bothers me to some extent, and everything coming from Mike bothers me a great deal.
You write:
'Belief is one thing, but if Anne is going to be able to stand up to what will no doubt be a difficult onslaught from Melvin Harris, [that is, if this new book thing is really in the works] then she will have to do better in the 'proof' department than she has managed so far.'
But, of course, you don't believe Anne had anything to do with the actual forgery, just that she lied about where the diary was before 1992. So you don't believe she will ever be able to do better in the 'proof' department. And whatever she says is highly unlikely to help flush out the forgers themselves.
So let's hope Melvin will be able to do better in the 'proof' department, if he is planning to maintain and build on his 'belief' that Anne, along with Mike, acted as handler/placer of a document forged by others.
Don't forget - Anne isn't the only one who may be in 'an impossible position' if they have no 'proof'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 27 March 2002 - 06:32 am | | Religion is a hoax. With a history at once ornate, wacky, beautiful and terrible. So much has been built on a foundation of fantastic speculation, and so many people have been employed in doing the work of mysterious imaginary friends. Such an amazing con game - as one Zen master laughed on his death-bed: ``All this time I've been selling water by the river!'' I read this quote and thought it apt. Ha-Ha It was taken from a publication on God being a hoax. i like the zen master laughed on his death bed bit. Devereux ? take care guys.
Tee Vee |
Author: VanNistelrooj@aol.com
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 06:04 pm | | Have you guys still not managed to break Anne's story? Not even with Steve's help?
Could it be that Anne is, was and always will be telling the truth?
Ever considered that? |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 10:45 am | | Peter,
Welcome back.......now bugger off.
"Keep telling the lie. Do not break the lie. Never deviate, add to nor explain the lie. Then they will believe it and what is more important, they will except it" - Josef Goebbels
Monty
|
Author: VanNistelrooj
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 03:20 pm | | Monty
"To do is to be" - Satre.
"To be is to do" - Descartes.
"Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
See where it gets you referring to obscure quotes? Absolutely nowhere.
Now tell me what 'proof' you have that James Maybrick didn't write the diary and the same James Maybrick wasn't Jack the Ripper.
Until then you'd better start studying your maps for Bury and Stockport, Wigan and Nottingham. Because that is where you are going next year, my boy.
Regards (High regards for you)
Peter. |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 31 March 2002 - 09:48 am | | Peter,
Obscure ?? You seem to have gotten the jist.... cannot have been that obscure.
My proof ? Erm....er....erm..well...no....erm....
..the writing does not match....details in the diary do not conclude with the facts....how is was discovered and its history has soooo many inconsistancies ...... there the obvious ones.
Yep, I know your gonna hit me with the science bit and then here we go again on the roundabout.
You know my views. I cannot rule it out. Its just that there have been so many lies already that the truth has been buried. We both know that.
It seems odd. Our teams are at opposite ends of the table yet we shall both end up potless.
Ob-bla-di
Yours, with the highest regard,
Mischeivous Monty
Glad to see you still easy to wind up |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 08:41 am | | No no no Mr Monty. I shall not be wound up that easily. That was a different person in a different lifetime. Thus the change of name.
My challenge goes out to people like MR JOHN OMLOR who make all encompassing statements such as " ...the diary is such an obvious fake/we have only to decide who the forgers are. And before you start writing to your local Senator John, I was paraphrasing.
Monty, it is not with you that I have my beef. It is with those who would conclude the diary is a fake without being willing to put forward their strongest arguments. They consistently deride the handwriting argument then posit Mike Barrett for the forger without realising that Mike's handwriting doesn't match the diary either. And we have access to whole load more samples of Mike's handwriting than we will ever have of James Maybrick's!
To those of you who believe the diary is a forgery I issue this challenge: Bring it on!! Come on, lets have your best arguments against it, you can even make the points one at a time if you like.
Something, anything to escape this limbo I am in.
Potless Monty? We will have the premiership and the European cup. And you will have a season ticket to the first division.
Leicester CITY (Conference In Three Years).
Regards
Peter.
P.S. In case you missed it on the other thread, John Omlor's current best argument against the diary is that James Maybrick's moustache didn't curl up. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 12:13 pm | | The PS above, concerning "current best arguments," is nonsense.
--John |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 05:04 pm | | Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 08:55 pm
The witness's description:
"He was 34 or 35 years old."
James Maybrick was not, of course. He was 50.
So, Peter re-tells Paul's story:
"Maybrick was a successful businessman used to the ways of good living. When someone in the East End describe '34 or 35 years old' they would have been describing someone who had grown up in their habitat, not someone who had all advantages Maybrick had."
Classic.
When the facts don't fit the suspect, make them. Re-write history to fit the suspect rather than evaluate the validity of the suspect in light of the actual recorded history.
Of course, it's utterly backwards -- the reverse of any responsible thinking about history or about the validity of any given suspect.
In other words, it is typical Feldman.
Why bother arguing, since the written historical record obviously means nothing and can be conveniently rewritten at will to fit whatever one needs? Need "34 or 35" to mean "50"? No problem, just let Paul do it. Maybe Maybrick looked 35 when he was really 50. True, he was a drug addict living in the nineteenth century -- but hey, remember Joan Collins! Sigh. It is indeed such stuff as dreams are made on.
And still there is not a single piece of real evidence anywhere on the planet that links the real James Maybrick to these crimes or to the so-called diary in any way whatsoever.
But that too is simply an inconvenience.
It's not worth arguing about. Nothing has changed.
--John
PS: Take a look at the corners of Maybrick's mustache. When fantasy filled rationalization takes the place of responsible history, I suppose anything is possible.
Just for those of you who missed it the first time, or needed reminding, I copied John's post here. The emboldening is, of course, mine.
John, I don't see any other argument here. You squirm and attempt to ridicule my discussion of age by making Joan Collins an object of ridicule. But, apart from that you don't actually argue anything.
Therefore: The PS above, concerning "current best arguments," is not nonsense.
It is, in my opinion, your current best argument.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 01 April 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Peter,
It is not my best argument. It is not even my current argument. I am not even arguing.
The description says the man's mustache curled up at the ends.
You said, "look at the pictures."
I did.
Maybrick's curls down. I was just pointing out that fact.
And he was fifty, not thirty four or five, and he is not particularly foreign looking in any way. But none of this will stop you, I know, since language, for you, means whatever you want it to mean for the convenience of your insistent but irrelevant theory (such utter disregard for meaning remains the only thing that makes Maybrick's candidacy as a suspect conceivable in spite of the complete and total lack of evidence anywhere on the planet that links him in any way either to the crimes or to the forged diary).
On the other hand, and to be fair, I can certainly see the fictional "Maybrick" character in the diary vigorously twirling his mustache up at the ends, just like the evil cartoon villain he is.
Art is better than life.
--John |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 11:52 am | | | Seconds out! Round 2. DING! DING! |
Author: VanNistelrooj
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 05:37 pm | | John
Did you actually have anything you wished to discuss here? A point that I could debate with you ? Or are we just reduced to debating whether James wore his moustache up or down?
Yes James was 50. No, he didn't look 50.
Not particularly foreign looking - in your opinion, John.
James had spent a good part of each year in the good old USA. I wonder if Hutchinson recognised that Maybrick dressed like a yank and thus used the term 'foreigner'. Aaah yes, he was supposed to have said 'Jewish', right? One man's Jew is another man's Gentile.
Keep treading the boards John, like the cheap Vaudeville comedy act you have become. Twirl your comedy moustache, wave your boater hat high in the air and see how much longer you can manage to completely evade any rational or reasoned debate.
Or just avoid the point.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 02 April 2002 - 06:37 pm | | Well, that was useful.
--John |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 03 April 2002 - 08:27 am | | Ha ha! You don't visit the boards for a month or two, but nothing changes - so no matter!
Peter, pleased to see you still banging away in the shallow end...
"One man's Jew is another man's Gentile"
Indeed!
I will concede that an odd point or two that you make could have some validity - however, the sheer number of 'alternative readings' of each piece of evidence serves to make the whole edifice less and less likely to hold water.
Still - carry on - you have brightened up my day (which has been spoilt somewhat by discovering that I have been made redundant  !)
C |
|
|
|
|
