|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23 April 2002
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
TIME FOR A RE-VALUATION II:
Archive through 23 April 2002
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 14 April 2002 - 05:57 am |        | | HI GUYS. |
Author: Raphael Aglietti
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 03:51 pm | | | You know Tee Vee I have to contest the authenticity of that "HI GUYS" I'm not sure you wrote it. However I cannot prove or disprove it except to take it at face value. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 06:07 am | | DOUBTFUL STANDARDS MELVIN HARRIS
Dear Keith: you tell us that Alan Gray declined to meet with you because he was working for me on my new book. You ask if that book will name the forgers. Of course not. I have never at any time said that I would publicly name anyone. I stick by that. And I am not obliged to explain why to anyone.
This is not anew position for me. I have taken similar decisions in other, quite unrelated cases; the Vinland map affair for one. And there the matter ends.
But Keith, you should have disclosed that you wrote this to Gray: "A colleague and I have been commissioned to write a book, scheduled for publication next year, chronicling the ongoing investigation into trying to resolve/determine the historical status and significance of the alleged "Diary of Jack the Ripper"...our intention is to recount the extraordinary story of the past ten years accurately and objectively...it is important for our book that Mr. Harris's characterisation of your specific involvement is fair and accurate."
Now, you were lucky to get such a mild reply from Alan because anything that I have said about him on internet was first agreed to BY HIM. Thus your words were not welcome. Since then, Alan has taken into account the following nasty piece of spite penned by your colleague Paul Begg. On March 26th he wrote: ...the very dubious testimony of Alan Gray that Mike told him about the book and its significance in September 1994."
There is not the slightest justification for Begg's words. Alan has done no more than faithfully record the bare facts. He was first told about an evidential book in August 1994, when initially engaged by Mike. He took little note of that since it was not relevant to his instructions. It became relevant only when he was re-engaged by Mike during the first week of September. His instructions were now quite different. It was in that week, that the book was named variously as a poem book, as a Sphere book of poems, as a Sphere book of poetry. (Mike likes to permutate.)
I first made contact with Alan Gray in the last week of October 94. This was at the request of the Sunday Times. When I asked about hard evidence he told me about the Sphere book and I advised him to persuade Mike to withdraw it from his solicitors so that it could be examined. Maike, though, was only one of Alan's clients and it was not until December 6th that the two arranged to visit the solicitors office in Dale Street. On that day the book was recovered by Mike and handed over to Alan, who recorded the event and its date and place, on the rear end-paper.
Alan is not a Ripperologist. He has never even read "The Diary of Jack the Ripper." When he first spoke to me it was simply on behalf of a client. He did no more than repeat the information given to him. He had no motive for juggling dates and names. Neither of us then knew of Mike's double game involving the lie that he had found the Crashaw quote in a public library on Sept. 30th. This duping of Mrs. Harrison only became known much later.
Further to that, he never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was ever seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes. And he did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner. He had some contempt for the local rag but thought he could use it to get noticed by wealthy national papers or television companies. And he was right. It took some time but that initial flurry led both the Sunday Times and an American TV station to take a fresh look at the affair and ask for supporting evidence.
But if this book is really to be an honest one then you have set yourself an unenviable task. You will have to disclose the fact that all your lengthy and expensive research was worthless. That you failed to produce a single piece of evidence that validated the diary. That you failed to read the essential documents that showed the Diary text was a recent concoction. That you failed to denounce the use of bogus documents. Plus some other grim things.
Start now on the honesty trail by repudiating the lies. the misrepresentations, the distortions, that you find in the books by Mrs. Harrison, Feldman and Anne Graham. Begin on page XXXVI of Harrison's Blake paperback. There she says: "An organisation was even set up to have my book banned." Now this is a rotten lie. The organisation she refers to was the Committee for Integrity which was set up well AFTER her book was published. It had nothing to do with banning anything. It was set up in response to the many smears coming from Diary dupes. These culminated in the champion smear that the AFI tests were rigged. And the title was a riposte to the 1992 (claim made by some od Feldman's sidekicks) that I lacked integrity and therefore should not be allowed to see the Diary.
Beware, though, honesty is a demanding discipline. And you are not yet ready for its rigours. Your question to Alan Gray proves this. You ask: " ... how do we deal with Mr Barrett's written allegation that you kept feeding him with whisky in front of a witness to induce his stories?" You must be short of material and short on memory to even ask such a daft question. Yes, Mike drinks, (so does Feldman, so does Fido etc., ) but he is a ready liar, drunk or sober, when it suits him. AND YOU KNOW THAT. Even so, his two main affidavits were READ OVER TO HIM when he was stone-cold sober and before he signed them. His statement to the Liverpool Police of 5 Nov. 1994 was read back to him by Detective Constable Abram at Walton Lane Police Station. His statement of 9th Jan 1995 was read back to him by a Solicitor. Following that, his testimony was sworn to in front of D.P. Hardy, (a Solicitor Empowered to Administer Oaths) at 62 Dale Street Liverpool. Now whether his statements were true or false, or a mixture of both is immaterial, but they were not orchestrated for him by Alan Gray with the aid of booze. The facts show otherwise. And that, dear Keith, is how WE deal with Mike's lying claims. So why are you using shabby tactics in dealing with Alan Gray? It is your responsibilty to weigh up the known evidence before asking offensive questions.
Perhaps, though, you are more concerned with making capital out of your involvement than with recording the full, unpleasant facts. This could explain why you are also involved with a project which is trying to saddle Michael Maybrick with the faked Diary and the role of the Ripper. This in itself makes you a highly suspect champion of the truth. Never mind, you can take comfort in rhapsodizing over the "newly found 40 extra Diary pages." This is a fair comment, since this new yarn comes from the very Mike you are trying to take seriously. Or did someone ply him with drink before he made this latest claim? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 05:45 pm | | I am afraid that I have neither the time nor the interest to respond at any kind of length to what has quite clearly become Melvin Harris’s absurd paranoia about the motives and intentions of myself and my colleagues. Throughout most of January 2002 the testimony of Mr Gray and the reasons for it being dubious were discussed at length and in considerable detail on these Message Boards. Anyone interested can check the archives, particularly from 15th to 31st January and especially a long post addressed to Robert Smith on 18th January and a post dated 31st January. From these posts it is manifestly obvious that my cited back reference of 26th March was neither nasty nor spiteful and it is painfully revealing of Melvin Harris’s mentality that he should think so.
Very briefly, on 26th March I wrote: “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.”
Are there grounds for doubting that Mike Barrett told Alan Gray about the Sphere book and its significance in the first week of September 1994? If there are then Alan Gray’s testimony is dubious. Needless to say, of course, Mr Gray’s honesty and integrity is not in question. But his memory of what he was told and precisely when he was told it is. It is in question because ‘Barrett spoke of a book that was EVIDENCE a few days after he was engaged by him, in August 1994, but never went into any details. Gray never bothered to press for more information since it was not relevant to his brief at that time…So he took little notice when Mike later spoke about papers and statements he had, together with this book, that would vindicate him.’ (Melvin Harris Thursday, 02 November 2000 - 06:31 pm "DATES?" Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Maybrick/Jack's watch?: Archive through November 04, 2000) (my underlining). From this statement we learn that Mr Gray ‘took little notice’ of what he was told about something he considered irrelevant to his brief and about which he could not be bothered to press for further details. This alone is sufficient reason for questioning the value of his testimony.
Mike mentioned a book but ‘never went into any details’, so we can’t be sure that Mike was even talking about the Sphere book. Mr Gray ‘took little notice’ of what he was told, so we can’t be sure that he accurately remembered what he was told or more crucially when he was told it. The testimony clearly cannot be relied on, thus it is dubious. Furthermore, we don’t know when Alan Gray recalled being told about the Sphere book. According to Melvin, ‘Alan Gray now tells me that Barrett spoke of a book…’ (same post as above and again my underlining). ‘Now’ means sometime recently, sometime about the time Melvin was writing, sometime about November 2000. That’s six years after September 1994. If Mr Gray was recalling what he was told six years earlier, can we be sure that those recollections are accurate, especially given that ‘he took little notice’ of what he was told at the time.
There were and are questions concerning the reliability of Mr Gray’s testimony and the testimony is therefore manifestly dubious. It requires clarification. Neither Mr Gray nor his mouthpiece Melvin Harris have chosen to provide any.
Finally, while trying to claim that I had no justification for my words, Melvin slipped in a little bit of new information as if it was something that I knew, namely that ‘the book was named variously as a poem book, as a Sphere book of poems, as a Sphere book of poetry.’ My posts of January 2002 make it obvious that I did not know this.
It does not much change anything, but it raises again the question of why Mike thought or may have thought the Sphere book significant. What in the middle of 1994 did Mike think was significant about the Sphere book. What did he tell Mr Gray that distinguished that book from all the other source books he’d used in constructing his hoax? The only thing that distinguishes the Sphere book from other books he used, such as Martin Fido’s book which provides the Punch cartoon, is the obscurity of the quotation. But in early September 1994 Mike didn’t know that the quote was obscure. The Sphere book only became distinguished from other probable sources when it obscurity of the quote was realised in the months following Mike ‘finding’ it.
As for the rest of Melvin's ‘go’ at Keith Skinner, I don’t know why Keith should digify such utter rubbish with a response but maybe he will find time to do so, if only to explain what the hell Melvin’s going on about. As I understand it, Mike Barrett has said that Alan Gray basically fed him booze to get him to say some of the things he said. Mike’s not reliable and this story doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense, but Keith wrote a polite letter to Alan Gray inviting his comments. Mr Gray replied with a letter that was astonishingly silly and does him no credit. In my opinion extending an invitation to comment on a serious allegation is the action of a professional and I simply cannot grasp the twisted logic that turns it into ‘shabby tactics’.
(By the way, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Keith's forthcoming 'diary' book.) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 05:45 am | | GET THE FACTS RIGHT, BEGG!
Melvin Harris
Begg as ever vends false information whenever it suits him. He quotes from my post dated Nov. 4th 2000 and misrepresents it completely. My words simply amplify a terse EARLIER statement of mine. They refer to events in AUGUST 1994 when Alan Gray had no interest in the Diary and Mike Barrett's ramblings about it. This later included dark hints about papers, a book, some blotting paper and so on. Alan took no notice. It was then irrelevant. But all that changed in September 1994 when Gray was given new instructions. This was made crystal clear in my brief post of Friday OCTOBER 20th 2000 TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE POST BEGG MISUSES. In it I said of Alan Gray: "Mike first engaged him at 11am Sunday 14th August 1994 (to search for his wife.) Further engaged him to expose the Diary. Then (Sept.) told the story behind the lines: "O costky..."
Begg, having ignored the October 20th text, tries to pretend that my later use of the word: "now" means that Alan Gray is only recalling events six years after September 1994. Quite crazy! My files were in store so I asked Alan Gray to search his records for the precise date when Mike first engaged him and then reengaged him. He came back with th exact day in August 1994 and the exact week in September and then went over the events of the following four months. The "now" applies to my conversations with him in October 2000. But my files prove that those conversations merely confirmed what he had already told me and the "Sunday Times" in 1994.
Begg then asserts that Mike "in early September 1994 didn't know that the quote was obscure." Yet another crazy stance! Researchers, librarians and scholars, including myself and Martin Fido, had searched in vain for the quote for two years. MIKE KNEW THIS and took delight in gloating over "his find."
Finally, Begg conceals the fact that Skinner wrote to Alan Gray and asked him to comment on some serious allegations made by Mike BUT FAILED TO SHOW ALAN A SINGLE LINE OF TEXT FROM MIKE'S STATEMENTS. That is not a laudable or honest approach. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 09:11 am | | 'MIKE KNEW THIS and took delight in gloating over "his find."'
But does Alan Gray, or anyone else for that matter, have hard evidence of exactly when this gloating began?
Was it LONG BEFORE Mike's confession and split from Anne, for instance? Or was it on 30th September 1994? Or do records not exist that can establish the date beyond doubt?
If Mike put "O costly..." in the diary, "his find" would obviously date back a lot longer than the first week of September 1994 (if that's what Alan Gray's records can show), and possibly back to mid-1989 when the Sphere Guide is presumed to have arrived in his home.
Surely the important thing here is to establish what evidence exists for Mike's knowledge of, or involvement in forgery, and to make that evidence publicly available. And if no more evidence exists than we know about already, why not be laudable and honest and just say so?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 01:59 pm | | Message to Phil and Peter,
Excuse me lads if I point out one or two facts about the people who reply to the posts you give.
1. They are only trying to reply to you with open and logical minds (go back and read their posts with new eyes.
2. Most people here post with irony and sarcasm (IE- a sense of humour) this doesn't mean they are laughing at you, this means they just might try being friendly.
When you insult people at Casebook I too feel offended. I spent the last year and a half getting to know these nice people, I suggest you do the same. Please.
Tris |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 05:31 pm | | I'm sorry but I have a book to write and I simply don't have the time to be bothered with Melvin. If he wants to continue to vent his spleen, he can do so alone.Briefly, then, the quotation I cited very clearly states August and I meant August, not September. My intention was simply to refer to the earliest date we have for Mike allegedly mentioning a vindicatory book and to demonstrate that Mr Gray’s memory of what he was told was to be doubted because he didn’t pay any attention to what he was told and consequently we cannot be sure whether Mike was talking about the Sphere book or some other book (perhaps an invented one which along with the other papers, blotting papers and other stuff seems to have vanished into thin air). I did not ignore the earlier post, but it raised questions that were too long to get involved with, not the least being the patently unacceptable reason Mike gave for not giving the Sphere book to Harold Brough. I did not try to pretend anything about Mr Gray recalling anything in 2000, I simply quoted what Melvin said and was correct, as he now confirms, in my understanding. What Melvin does not tell us is whether or not Alan Gray was recalling from memory or from some sort of record he made at the time. Melvin says that Alan Gray searched his records – but he searched them for the precise dates he was engaged by Mike, which wasn’t what we needed to know. As for the Crashaw quote, it isn’t that people couldn’t find it, but that outside of the Sphere book it is virtually unfindable. And I'd like to know how Melvin knows Mike took delight in gloating. And I did not ‘conceal’ anything about Keith Skinner’s letter to Mr Gray because Keith Skinner didn’t ask Mr Gray to comment on Mike’s allegations and there was not one iota of dishonesty or unprofessionalism in Keith’s approach.
But having cleared away Melvin’s taradiddle, there is one very important point I would like to make clear for Mr Gray. I’m sure it is fully appreciated by everyone here that nothing said about Mr Gray’s testimony reflects detrimentally in any shape, way or form on his professional standards. Mr Gray clearly prides himself on his professional standards and no doubt does so with every justification. What has been questioned is whether he has been accurately reported by Melvin Harris and whether his memory of what he was told in September 1994 is correct. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 06:54 pm | | Hi Tris,
Putting aside any specific persons, I too find that insulting posts do more harm to the reputation of the sender than the person they critique.
It's one thing to have a disagreement about facts and circumstances (as the diary controversy certainly presents). It is quite another to be insulting and dismissive on anyone who disagrees wih your opinion.
Rich |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 01:34 am | | Hi Tris,
Do you mean me? Have I insulted anybody? Where? Ask my wife and she will say that she wishes I would leave out the irony and sarcasm.
Philip - who doesn not like being called Phil but somehow always ends up as Phil |
Author: Tee Vee
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 12:36 pm | | Hi guys,
I `d just like to know whether the "Littlechild" letter discovered in 1993 (Stewart P Evans) has been through the same ridicule and hoop-la that this "diary" has ? Or is its provenence 100% kosher? It was found in 1993 within some old papers to a Mr G R Sims. It looks more dodgy than the diary. But i suppose another book is written from it, and the answer back, the "discovery channel" documentary and the re-release on paperback etc etc. It just makes me wonder why there is so much so called evidence popping up, all pointing in different directions, each direction having a possibilty or a reason for the murders. What were the police doing in those days. (Well apparently looking for him in new york?????) And i must agree I have seen the newspaper articles going back saying how whitechapel suspect seems to of escaped abroad. But Tumblety was older than Maybrick by some years, so If Maybrick`s age is out of the question???? And wasn`t Tumblety 5 foot 10 inches tall. Oh someone just let me know if i`m going to go forth and read a book full of nonsence. ????
Still in an amateur way looking for the answer too. But its starting to give me a head ache now. But I must say I really really like the ultimate source book. along with the A-Z what more do you need on this case??????? (for me obviously a lot more brain) Yours truly
Tee the Vee |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 02:52 pm | | | No the Littlechild letter has not been through 'the same ridicule and hoop-la' for the simple reason that it is genuine and its provenance is excellent. |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 09:40 pm | | Burn the Littlechild letter and eat the ashes! Have at 'em and God help us all.
David |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 12:45 am | | Hi Mr Exans,
Why is it kosher ??? Anything to do with the Ripper we have to be sceptical. But I have read (well i`m currently reading) Your "Ultimate source book" and it is a fabulous book, My first purchase was a mutant book i must say, but i know what its like to finish a good ripper book and to be honest my friend I dont really want to finish yours, I also have your Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell book so I must say keep up the good work, And i do like the Tumblety theory (so thanks) But I do feel that anything to do with the Ripper needs high speculation, cos if Mike said to the world about the diary "its genuine and the provenance is excellent", I`m not too sure if that would`ve been acceptable, but I do know that you discovered this little gem, so maybe i`m just jeleous ? but anything found or discovered post Diary should be scrutinised in just the same way as the Diary.
And i understand a knife was also found on a step post Liz Stride murder, and i think i can remember seeing a photo of a man holding this artifact a few years ago, but can no longer find it, not even on the net. so if anyone could help me with that it would be great. Is there a pic of it on the "casebook?"
Well guys its 5am and i need to go to work so. Take care. speak soon.
Yours truly.
Tyler (Tee Vee) |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 01:39 am | | Hi Tyler
As Stewart said, the provenance of the Littlechild letter is excellent and the provenance of a document is – or has been – 90 per cent of the game. Take the Swanson marginalia as an example: it is one item among a lot of other Swanson material, is owned by a descendant of Swanson and the ownership of the material can be traced back to Swanson himself. The same is pretty much the same for the Littlechild letter. It was discovered and investigated by Stewart Evans, who has an impeccable reputation, who obtained it from a similarly well-accredited dealer, who bought it along with other G.R. Sims material many years ago.
The problem is that you can never prove anything genuine. All you can do is look for the tell-tale signs that it is a forgery. If you don’t find them, then you can conclude that the document or chair or painting is probably genuine, and it is has a good provenance then the more likely it is to be genuine.With the greatest respect to Peter Wood, this is what he doesn’t appear to appreciate about the ‘diary’. It is riddled with tell-tale signs of forgery – such as the handwriting not being James Maybrick’s – and the provenance is appalling. This is enough to start warning bells ringing loud and clear and it really does not bear comparison with the Littlechild letter. And the results of ‘scientific’ tests, though dubious in that there has been conflict between different tests and different opinions, show that the ‘diary’ ink almost certainly contains a chemical that wasn’t used in ink manufacture before the 1960s.
Arguing that maybe Maybrick had a multiple personality or maybe that he had more than one handwriting style or maybe that some letter written by somebody purporting to be the Ripper looks like Maybrick’s handwriting, and so on, is meaningless overall. If the handwriting alone was the only evidence suggestive of forgery, then maybe such speculation would be valid and reasonable and acceptable. People like Peter would probably be better off arguing that handwriting analysis isn’t a science, that handwriting analysts generally compare signatures, not documents the length of the ‘diary’, that some of them require the suspect document and a genuine document to be written under the same emotional and physical conditions (i.e., you can’t compare a document written in post-murder trauma with a letter thanking someone for a bail of cotton). If objections such as this have validity – and I am not saying they do, just saying that if they do – then ultimately we’ll come back to provenance. Which is why John Omlor repeats over and over that there is not one tiny shred of anything anywhere that links the ‘diary’ to James Maybrick or even to his lifetime. And that in turn is why it is important to examine Mike Barrett’s story in an effort to establish whether he forged it or whether it was forged by somebody before him, and how the answers to those questions affect other deductions. But none of this is necessary in the case of the Littlechild letter because the provenance is pretty much established. Forgery is always possible, no matter how genuine something looks, a forger could still have been very, very clever, but the probability is very much in favour of the Littlechild letter being genuine, so much so that there seems no reason to question it. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 02:49 am | | "Take the Swanson Marginalia as an example: it is one item among a lot of other Swanson material, is owned by a descendant of Swanson and the ownership of the material can be traced to Swanson himself."
I am afraid other questions should be adressed to state safely that the Swanson's Marginalia are genuine:
Questions that could give us some hints:
a) In which occasion did the Swanson's Marginalia get "discovered" or rendered public, was it a very particular moment in Ripperology (did the discovery helped a theory or an author ?);
b) How were they rendered public ? (Did the "discoverer" try to make money out of it?);
c) What is the reputation of the descendant who own them ?
Questions that could establish some facts:
d) What kind of scientific expertise has been done about them ? (handwriting, ink, paper);
At least to know if the Marginalia could have been already written by the death of Swanson;
e) Do we know if Swanson was used to make Marginalia "for himself" on other books ?
This is very important in the case of the Swanson Marginalia because if you believe them to be genuine you must believe Swanson to be:
a) possibly rambling;
b) likely confusing things in what has been the most important case of his career and of which he was directly on charge;
c) surely not knowing the functionning of legal procedures;
and if you do believe all that it's your choice, but your choice is not based on any evidence.
There is no question of questioning the Littlechild's letter because it expresses only Littlechild's (very equilibrated) opinion in the seriousness of a suspect and because it tells about a suspect whose status of suspect is corroborated by the Press of the day.
There are a lot of things that make the Swanson's Marginalia very questionable.
Not the least the writing down of them in two pages.
What about if only the first one was genuine ?
I do not think the cleverness of the forger is of such an importance but I think the investigator had better try to be and look for the devil in every corner.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 03:32 am | | Hi, Paul and John:
Did you say, Paul, that John Omlor repeats things "over and over"? Should we then, think of renaming him John Over? 
Chris |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:38 am | | Graziano
I was only using the marginalia as an example of a document with an unimpeachable provenance. But to give answers to your questions:
(a) The marginalia was made known to a journalist working for the Daily Telegraph following the publication of an article about the Ripper books published at the end of 1997 in anticipation of the centenary in 1988. The discovery did not help any author (except possibly me, indirectly, but I was informed about the discovery by Donald Rumbelow and had no part in it).
(b) answered above; no the discoverer did not try to make money out of it, though goodness knows why he didn’t.
(c) grandson; impeccable.
(d) handwriting has been cofirmed by a Home Office forensic examiner; the marginalia is in pencil, the paper is that of a book published in 1910.
(e) Yes, there are several other books containing marginal notes (plus others papers and notebooks).
There is no reason to suppose he was rambling and those who remembered him in old age said his mind was razor sharp to the day he died. If you think he was rambling, confused, and so on, it is up to you to provide supportive evidence. One can't dismiss or discount a piece of evidence just because it is possible that it is a forgery - which is exactly the point I was making; nothing can ever be proven genuine. Even what you say about the Littlechild letter only goes to show how clever its forger was! But unless there are good reasons for suspecting forgery, as there are with the 'diary', one assumes that a document is genuine and runs such tests as are deemed appropriate. It may not be the most satisfactory procedure but it's the only one we've got.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: graziano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:13 am | | So, Paul,
if the Marginalia did not help any theory and/or any author at the moment of their discovery,
if their discoverer did not try to make money out of it,
if the discoverer/owner has an impeccable reputation,
if Swanson handwriting and the date of the ink have been confirmed by a specialist (first page, second page, last sentence, one by one),
if Swanson used to write down Marginalia,
in fact, if all what you have said is true,
so, yes, in all likelyhood the Marginalia is genuine, written by Chief Inspector Donald Swanson some years before his death.
Of course, I have no reason to doubt any of your statements.
Only, as far as I was concerned, nobody told me that till this moment.
Thank you. Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Nevertheless, trying to catch the devil: should I write something like a marginalia and not having enough space on my first page I would make sure that a note on this same page would send the reader on the second one, overall when this second one is not the right next one but the last free one on the book some fifty or more pages away.
Well...unless of course I write for myself.
I told you...just trying to catch the devil...and trying to find a logical solution to the misleading/incorrect information contained in it, overall when compared with the one given by Anderson.
But this is all another story.
Too difficult for me. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 06:31 am | | Hi Graziano
Continue trying to catch the devil. We learn through questioning. Uncovering mistakes, discovering problems and finding their solutions, are the ways we advance what we know. |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 06:58 am | | Hi Chris,
The problem is, for reasons understood by anyone who ever went to school, where young children can be so cruel, I quickly learned never to put my potentially embarrassing initials on anything or use them for any purpose without including my middle initial. Thus, for me, it would have been "JVO."
Repeatedly (but not blind yet),
--John |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 11:41 am | | I say again, Burn the Swanson Marginalia! We must break, break, break the ten commandments of Ripperology, and test, test, test our free speech, if we are ever to solve the case! And God help the meekest among us.
David |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 12:38 pm | | Thanks guys.
I havent actually read posts but before I do, I want you to know that I respect you all.Mr Begg. Mr Skinner, Mr Fido, Mr Sugden Etc, I have read your books, and it`s only the great books that you have all researched and written that I have read that have got me into this subject (starting with a curious interest in it myself of course) So before i read the reply that i started to read I`d just like to thank you all. Sorry Mr Evans if i offended with my 5am post. The ultimate source book Is A1. Dont want to complete the reading of it as it`ll be like losing a good friend, just like the other Ripper book`s I`ve read.
Thanks guys.
yours truly
Tyler (Tee Vee)
PS can`t you release some alternative book covers ?? I do get some strange looks from people when i`m going to work. and I`ll be reading away, and i`ll look up and see a gorgeous girl, and i`ll smile then she looks all scared and dont smile back, then i go back to my book and realise exactly why. ha ha. As anyone else noticed this? I was on a train the other day and this guy was taking notes i swear, he was counting my freckles, checking what i was wearing just incase a serial killer was to spree on that day i wouldv`e been suspect number 1. anyway that was a light hearted Jack book fan`s broadcast for the paranoid party. |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 01:43 pm | | Hi Tyler You should see the looks I get at my local Library all of the staff know what I'm researching (murders in north lincolnshire) and they hide when I go there
from steve
 |
Author: Tee Vee
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 03:05 pm | | I`m going to open a new board if thats okay??? "The looks you get reading books on murder" What do you reckon ???? I get it in the library too. I got out "The complete Jack the Ripper" (I`m not sure yet if this is the same book but in hardback? as that i`ve just bought) Mr Sugden i believe? and another book called "The Rachel Files" (wimbledon common murder) and I`m sure the info from my library card was sent to the FBI. And also when i bought a book on the taliban regime and "The Holy War" I bought it on a card so i`m sure i was tagged an official nutt nutt.
So Steve What are these murders your rersearching then ? Long time ago? Serial? I know someone who lives up there whom I`m supposed to visit. So Just curious. E-mail perhaps?
Sorry i know this is not in accordance with the board so feel free to erase it if in the way. Thanks again guys. At this moment i`m trying to forge a suicide note from Brian Jones. oops!! I mean, reading up on good old Jack.
yours truly
Tyler |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:18 pm | | FACTS VERSUS FANCY
Melvin Harris
My complaint about Begg is that he is rarely straightforward and he is often responsible for garbled or false information. But getting him to own up is a thankless task. He is a champion waffler and an inexcusably timewaster. By contrast, I have given a brief, honest account of events back in August and September 1994 as related to me by Alan Gray. Gray's records MADE AT THE TIME confirm his statements. My diary for 1994 confirms that Gray made the substance of his records plain to me when we first spoke. The book mentioned to him in August 1994 WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE SPHERE BOOK IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 1994 I stated that back in October 1994 and I am on record as stating that I asked for the Sphere book to be recovered from the solicitor as soon as I learned of its location. There is no excuse for misunderstanding these elementary facts.
At the time, neither of us knew that Mike was bamboozling Mrs. Harrison about the book and his "literary research" (for which he offered TWO conflicting accounts.) We knew nothing of those events until January 18th 1995 when Mrs. Harrison rang Alan and asked him to hand over the Sphere book. He refused, and then, to safeguard this evidence, had Mike transfer the ownership to him.
How do I know Mike delighted in gloating? Simple. He rang me and said: "None of you bloody scholars had a clue where to look."
Finally Begg claims that: "Keith Skinner didn't ask Mr. Gray to comment on Mike's allegations." Really? Keith, in fact, asked this of Alan Gray: "How, for example, do we deal with Mr. Barrett's written allegation that you kept feeding him with whisky, in front of a witness, to induce his stories?" (Letter of March 30th.) This PROVES that Begg is being dishonest. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:20 pm | | And now, in my own voice let me ask one question; a question that can only be answered YES or NO. I put this question to anyone who reads these boards but especially to Paul Begg and Caroline Ann Morris.
"Do you believe that the "Diary of Jack the Ripper" was indeed written by James Maybrick."
I'm not for this purpose interested in whether it was an old forgery or whether it was written by someone to put the finger on JM for the Whitechapel murders or even (as is my opinion) a post-1988 forgery. Let's just get some one word answers here so that whether or not these films come into the theatres or whose names are or are not credited as Ripper specialist on the titles we do at least know the basic, honest opinion of some key figures, as to the most important part of the whole affair.
It's a fair question and the answer is:just YES or just NO! |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:08 pm | | Message to Paul Begg:
Paul, please feel free to ignore the vitriol that is being poured in your direction, we who know and love you are acutely aware that you would not lie. I would rather not see you get caught up in an argument with someone who doesn't deserve your attention.
Anyway Paul, now I have your attention ...
So the Littlechild letter has an excellent provenance? And the diary has a terrible provenance? Well, let's consider why that should be, shall we?
If either document dates back to 1888 (sorry Stewart, but the date for composition of the Littlechild letter eludes me) or whatever year, then they both remained 'hidden' for over a hundred years. The letter remained hidden beyond the discovery of the diary.
There are good reasons for supposing why the diary would have been kept hidden - i.e. To protect family reputations.
There are no good reasons for supposing why the Littlechild letter would be kept hidden - it threatened no-one. So why did it remain hidden for so long?
All we have in favour of the letter is Stewart's excellent reputation (Lord help the first man who tries to suggest that Stewart forged the Littlechild letter) and the fact that it was found amongst some old stuff.
Doesn't that sound similar to the 17 September letter?
But scorn is poured on one and not the other?
Ever wondered why?
Quite simply because the diary associates itself clearly with the 17 September letter, that's why.
I often wonder what the reaction would have been had the diary come down through the family of a respected legal family or a high court judge.
Then I wonder what would the reaction be if Mike Barrett had wandered into a book shop off the Old Kent Road, bought a dusty old book off the shelf and discovered the Littlechild letter inside it.
I don't think we can say anything for the provenance just going by who discovered one or other document. Stewart's reputation is a lot better than Mike's, but really the Littlechild letter has not been subjected to anywhere near the analysis that the diary has, not scientific analysis, not handwriting analysis etc etc.
And what does it amount to? One man's opinion.
Before the Littlechild letter was 'discovered' nobody mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper.
Before the diary was 'discovered' nobody had mentioned Maybrick in the same breath as Jack the Ripper in over one hundred years.
On that basis alone, Tumblety is no stronger a candidate for the Ripper than Maybrick.
And Paul, the diary does have a provenance, if you believe it was put together from 1970 onwards then Anne and her father are lying, although the scientific evidence at the very least would support their story.
"And the results of ‘scientific’ tests, though dubious in that there has been conflict between different tests and different opinions, show that the ‘diary’ ink almost certainly contains a chemical that wasn’t used in ink manufacture before the 1960s".
You should hang your head in shame Paul! The chemical in question (Chloroacetamide, I presume), was in existence well before James wrote his diary. Quote Shirley's book, p. 364:
"Dr Earl Morris of Dow Chemicals USA, who manufacture Chloroacetamide today, told me in Sept 1995 that he had found it in preparations ...dated 1857, 1871 and 1885".
Clearly Chloroacetamide was not only available, but also being widely used.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:12 pm | | To Peter Birchwood:
NO, James Maybrick did not write the Maybrick Diary. Neither did his brother Michael. Both are innocent, in my opinion, of any involvement in the Whitechapel murders. But fantasy and wishful thinking as well as Hollywood bucks  are powerful things, aren't they?
With best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:19 pm | | Hi Paul,
There's logical thinking for you.
Have fun,
--John |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:28 pm | | Mr. Wood writes: "Before the Littlechild letter was 'discovered' nobody mentioned Tumblety in the same breath as Jack the Ripper".
This is demonstrably untrue, as there are many (I have copies of at least five) contemporaneous newspaper stories from both England and the USA which specifically mention Tumblety in connection with JTR.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:53 pm | | Mike,
In fact, almost nothing in Peter Wood's hilarious post above is true or makes any real sense. And he has obviously never bothered to do any research or even simply read about the carefully reviewed and verified history of this letter. One suspects he has never even heard of Eric Barton. And he clearly has no idea what the word "provenance" actually means. It is impossible to debate with the irrational and the woefully uninformed. Fortunately, we don't have to, since we all know the diary is a fake and the Littlechild letter is not.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 06:42 pm | | Hi, John,
I felt that statement was a particularly egregious attempt at equivalency between a very good suspect (Tumblety) and a ...well how should I put this, less than optimal suspect such as Maybrick.
But I have no desire to get into the middle of this battological battle, so good luck and adios!
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 07:14 pm | | Thanks, Mike.
And I don't blame you one bit. 
All the best,
--John |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 07:32 pm | | Thanks, John,
Operating on this board, you must have the patience of a saint (or Sisyphus).
All the best,
Mike (who is now leaving the Underworld) |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 12:30 am | | Peter (Birchwood)
No.
Now, why do you ask the question? I have stated my opinion in print and in person so many times that I can't believe you are unaware of it. So why ask? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:17 am | | Keith Skinner sought a meeting with Alan Gray which Alan Gray declined because he was in the employ of Melvin Harris. In a reply Keith Skinner said that he understood Mr Gray’s position and did not want to compromise it, but explained that the problem he and his co author faced was ‘how to fairly and accurately assess’ Mr Gray’s ‘role and contribution to the investigation’ and his ‘professional relationship with Mr Michael Barrett’. Mike’s allegation was cited as an example of the problems Keith and his co-author faced and why he desired an interview with Mr Gray. Mr Gray’s comment on the allegation was not invited or expected. Inclusion of the allegation was not required. Keith was not engaging in dishonest tactics and I was not dishonest in what I said. Taking a quotation out of context, misinterpreting its meaning and accusing people of being dishonest when they aren't... what do we call that these days?
As for the time-wasting waffling and so on, my simple question is on what evidence is based the claim that Mike Barrett told Alan Gray about the Sphere book and its significance (and what significance did he claim it had) in the first week of September 1994? What makes it so certain that it was the first week and not the third or fourth week of September? Or the first week of October? Melvin hasn't answered. Go figure who’s the time-wasting waffler. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:44 am | | Peter (Wood)
Hi Peter:- that you for your comments, which are appreciated. However, to answer your questions. I don’t think the provenance of the Littlechild letter requires discussion as there is no doubt about it as far as I know and the reputation of Stewart and Mr Barton, from whom he purchased the material, is impeccable. The ‘diary’, on the other hand, is of very uncertain provenance – we don’t know whether Mike and Anne forged it, whether it was forged by ‘Devereux and his pals’ or whether it was in Anne’s family.
To address your other points, Tumblety was a suspect in 1888, so it isn’t true to say nobody had connected the names. Maybrick wasn’t a suspect, ever, anywhere, until the ‘diary’ came to light.
And I didn’t say that chloroacetamide wasn’t in existence. I said that it wasn’t used in ink manufacture before the 1960s. That’s why it would have been – and still is - important to establish whether the quantity of chloroacetamide was the same as would be expected had it been an ingredient of the ink or was consistent with being a contaminant.
Unfortunately, Peter, one cannot engage in generalisations on these Message Boards. Absolute precision is demanded – and perhaps rightly so. I greatly respect your tenacity in batting for your corner against the overwhelming odds marshalled against you. It has something of the flavour of Zulu about it. But unfortunately I don’t think you are doing your case any good at all by being less than accurate and precise in the arguments you make. I have no doubt that you have some silent supporters 'out there' and as their spokesperson I appeal to you to try and be more accurate. All the best |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 04:50 am | | So if someone out there had within there reach real artifacts from this era, and had held them for the last eighty years or so, would be-able to make a forgery with exactly what they`d need to, as they already have real documents from that era, so they would have a yard stick to measure up to, and when it was produced it would be accepted because they`ve held all these documents for eighty years. If i had a great great Uncle who was also a detective in the force in that era, and he had quite a bit of paper work left in his hands and handed them down through the generations (without its full index ever being catologued or given to the public) That means i could fabricate a document and slip it in there and say well the rest of it is 100% kosher so this one saying that Ronald McDonald was Jack the Ripper must also be. Again I`m not knocking Mr S Evans, but these documents were bought i suppose with baited breath, and rightly so. But i think its awfully funny. I mean if you have real official documents from that era, then you have original documents that would obviously show no signs of forgery, so you make your forgery to the same standard as those documents, and if that was succesful, the right paper, the right inks the right stamps, marginalia etc then it also would have no reason to be classed as a forgery would it ? I know that everyone involved with these documents has an impecible reputation. So i`ll leave it there but maybe its food for thought.
If only who ever forged this diary had some official Maybrick handwritting he could`ve pulled this diary off. but thats the way the cookie crumbles.
Yours truly
Tyler (Tee Vee) |
Author: Tee Vee
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 05:09 am | | And can i state that I`m in no ways, saying that Mr S Evans has anything to do with my interests, I`m only using the same standards with the littlechild letter as that has been used against the diary. Thats it, pure and simple.
thanks guys
Tyler |
|
|
|
|
