|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 6, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 6, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 05:32 am |        | From Keith Skinner To Chris George
Dear Chris
I very much appreciated your response of June 1st 2000.
I hope that you and Sam (Gafford) can understand my concern at a statement being ascribed to Anne Graham, for which there appears to be no corroboration. I realise that Ripper Historians tend to take the moral high ground when liars and fabricators are exposed and as Anne now apparently has a track record and reputation for deceiving people, I suppose I have to concede that it doesn’t really matter whether she is discredited even further on unsubstantiated evidence.
Your interesting point about the subliminal message being given out, inherent in combining my name (in detached form) with the accredited authors of ‘The Last Victim’ is one which, I must confess, had never previously occurred to me. I wonder whether discerning members of the public, scanning titles in a book store, actually do make that assumption or connection? Is there any hard statistical evidence to support the notion that writing a foreword to another author’s book is synonymous with being perceived as endorsing or agreeing with the conclusions reached by that author? Should the same argument be applied to Richard Whittington-Egan, for example, who wrote the foreword to Stephen Knight’s book?
I mentioned in my post to Janice that – yes – Anne has made money off the back of the Diary and continues to do so. The objection, I think, is that she and Carol Emmas, her co-author, succeeded in having a book published which, in part, uses source material that is questionable. I can tell you in all honesty that the book Anne Graham wanted to write was precisely the book that you and Sam contended could have been written. I had frequent conversations with Anne, during the writing of the manuscript, when she regularly expressed her frustration at having to include anything of the Diary. Her interest - as with Carol – was always with Florence Maybrick and not JTR. Three important intrinsically connected elements need to be understood. The first is that Paul Feldman financed the research of the book and the second is that Paul firmly believes that Anne is descended from Florence Chandler. The third element to consider is that Paul Feldman is a businessman and, understandably, wanted a return on his investment which was based on his unswerving, genuine belief in the authenticity of the Diary and Anne’s ancestry. This was how the book was sold to the Publishers, who had no interest in a book exclusively about Florence Maybrick.
Now we come to what I suggest is the core of our discussion. It was my good friend and colleague, Martin Fido, who recommended that Headline run with Anne and Carol’s MS, but with the strong caveat that the authors should give a definite opinion about the status of the Diary. What, in effect, Martin was saying, was that Anne Graham should make up her mind whether she had forged it or not. The moral issue, around which you are sensitively and delicately hovering, is whether Anne Graham has benefited financially from a bogus document, which she knows to be a modern hoax, because she created it. I can’t answer that Chris, but if you – or anybody else – can resolve that question, then please do so because you would make a lot of people very happy, including myself! All I would ask is that conclusive proof is not rested on academic analysis, interpretation or opinion, centred on the events in Whitechapel and Aigburth over a hundred years ago – and related to the internal content of the Diary.
Thanks again for your post Chris.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 07:36 am | | Martin - Guy is correct, although you have to wade through a lot of words to identify the third book, which I didn't have time to do. Apparently it is only necessary if the jacket of your hardback was missing (it provides the Blind Man's Buff cartoon). The Maybrick information is a little more difficult because in the cited piece Melvin seems tosuggest that much information was derived from "This Friendless Lady" by Nigel Morland. Elsewhere, however, Melvin has stated that all the Maybrick information could have been derived from "THE POISONED LIFE OF MRS MAYBRICK" by Bernard Ryan.
I can't recall any evidence being produced to show that either Mike or Ann had read or even heard of either of the cited books. But if I understand Melvin correctly, the only point he was making was that all the Ripper information in the 'diary' was in the public domain and easily available. This point was made as a counter to Feldman's claim that researching the 'diary' wasn't easy. As Melvin has shown, it was easy - if you used those two books; how easy it would have been if you didn't use them remains to be seen. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 01:08 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Janice
Dear Janice
Thank you very much for your post and invitation to the restaurant. I shall try not to be too indulgent, especially as Caroline is kindly paying the bill!
Reading Melvin Harris’s contribution to the Diary debate is important because Melvin does pick up on detail which others, (including myself) have missed. Melvin adheres rigidly to the printed word and from that foundation advances an hypothesis to explain and expose what he judges to be a modern hoax. I respect but do not share Melvin’s conclusions, neither do I ignore them. Both of us are on the same journey but Melvin arrived at what he perceived to be the truth, seven years ago, whilst I’m not yet there. If and when I ever do determine the truth about the Diary’s provenance, I shall rely on you to ensure I have not pole vaulted over any statements or swept any facts, pro or contra, under the rug.
I understand your position in that, as Anne Graham has lied, for you, there the matter ends. Paul (Begg) has suggested the motive for lying should be an important consideration – and in so doing has completely shattered my illusion about December 24th and ruined Christmas for me!
I would just like to add a further point. In her Introduction to The Last Victim, Anne Graham writes:-
“Little did I realise that what had begun as a private deception in an attempt to heal a rapidly deteriorating and painful relationship, would have such far reaching consequences.”
This “private deception” you characterize as “lied to the entire world” which pre-supposes, does it not, that she knew her husband would eventually go public with the Diary, for financial gain, eight or nine months after he first, allegedly, took possession of it? If that is the case, there you have an example of the woman being manipulative and scheming and these are traits which I have to put into the equation. I am trying not to misrepresent your point but simply apply it to the chronology of events in 1991 and 1992 – always allowing that Anne and Mike may have contrived the entire story of the Devereux factor – and of course it should not be forgotten that Mike has made a sworn affidavit to this effect. But if the deception of her husband did actually occur then, as I’ve mentioned before, the Diary has to have originated from somewhere, doesn’t it?
Now, you have every right to consider that aspect of provenance to be irrelevant and immaterial, yet in your category of “Highly Improbable” suspects, you have the name of Maybrick. Why? There is absolutely nothing, to my knowledge, that links him with these crimes, beyond an unauthenticated journal. So on what historical basis do you include him? And if it is the Diary, is it not important to you that the status of your primary source should be resolved?
Acceptance of Anne Graham’s story, for me, means that I am looking at a document which, expert and authoritative opinion informs me, could not have existed prior to 1987. For it to have done so means it is genuine. That is a powerful concept to have to take on board, which is why I am constantly probing and evaluating the modern story. It is all I can do.
I’m a little confused over what you refer to as being the test I apparently believe in and your advice to consider that it "MIGHT be flawed, or incorrect, or incomplete...". Which specific test do you have in mind here? The only ‘tests’ I can relate to are those which I have personally experienced and these are to do with the people and personalities involved – “their lifestyle, their environment.” My judgement may well be flawed or incorrect. I recognize that. I may be totally gullible and a complete walkover. I recognize that. I may only possess a shallow and superficial understanding of human behaviour and relationships. I recognize that. But it is in recognition of my possible inexperience and deficiences that I surround myself with friends and colleagues who can – and do – interpret human behaviour and situations in a completely different way to me. I heed very carefully what they have to say or write, translating their observations back into the bank of knowledge and information I have personally acquired about Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, ‘testing’ it against what has happened to their lives over the past eight years. This is probably why, Janice, you are unable to follow the route I travel – and I hope you will accept I am not being at all critical of you here but am merely trying to explain or clearly signpost my journey for you.
Thank you for your encouragement about my research. I wish you well coming to terms with Mrs Maxwell’s testimony. Perhaps I’m fortunate in that my primary sources are still alive and can be approached for information and clarification, but, as you rightly surmise, each to their own!
On which note, I think I must have reached the coffee and liqueur stage, so I shall pay my compliments to the chef, trust I haven’t been too much of a gourmande, make my exit – and leave Caroline to settle up!
Best Wishes.
Keith |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 01:12 pm | | We have two alternatives: Anne Graham has lied to various researchers and via them to the public concerning the provenance of the diary by saying that it had been in her family for years and thus implying that it's either genuine or an old forgery or she lied to her husband and then to various researchers but later told the truth. How though, can you tell when a liar is being truthfull? Surely you need independent evidence rather than relying on your own private feelings that "OK, she lied in the past but now she's saying what I want to believe so obviously she's telling the truth now."
And should you really put forward as fact, ie that she lied to her husband for the best of all possible reasons, when you have absolutely no reason for believing her other than the story fits in with the theory that you want to believe in.
Peter |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 02:20 pm | | The point I was making is that the motive for a lie is an important factor in assessing the character of the liar and that to dismiss Ann Graham out of hand simply because she has at some point demonstrably lied is a mistake. In so saying I am neither accepting her story about why she gave the 'diary' to her husband nor am I dismissing it. I am only pointing out that if her story is true then she acted from good intentions and that should be taken into consideration.
I don't know how we can decide if someone is telling the truth or lying through their teeth. I suppose that ultimately we can't, but thankfully we can and do make value judgements about people and Keith can and has done so regarding Ann Graham. And he is probably the only one among us who has enough experience of Ann Graham to be able to do so. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 05:27 pm | | WAKE UP IN THE BACK ROW!
On an earlier posting Martin Fido gave the impression that he had kept pace with my work on the 'Maybrick Diary'. Now we know that this is not true. He is years out of date and clearly unaware of the strides that have been made. His claim that I have refused to name the famous three books is utter nonsense. It is true that I refused to go into detail once, but that was way back in Feb 1995, after Feldman had talked of bringing out his book which would demolish me! Since he was then boasting of the vast scope of his research and of the large sums of money involved and of the quality of his 'Team', I let him get on with his labours and prove to us all just how honest and thorough he could be. I had my doubts on all scores, and with good reason and this I made plain to Fido (with evidence) in my letter to him of 10th March 1995. According to the text in Feldman's hardback, Fido then chose this event to make a false and unworthy written report on my position. (Page 94)
But that was five years ago and since then I have named those books more than once on this site. Back in 1997 I provided a step by step matching of the source books and the Diary text in my analysis of Feldman's book. That analysis was some forty pages long and hard to miss. It was followed by backup pieces which are also highly visible. And this year I have added to this by disclosing that Feldman KNEW that many of his claims were bogus as long ago as 1993; in writing that piece I once more named the three books. So just what is Fido up to?
In brief, and to repeat myself, (how wearisome this is) all the Ripper facts and fallacies, bar two, can be found in Peter Underwood's book. The two remaining items are in Fido's book. (The cartoon is on Fido's dust cover, but it has been used often in part magazines.) Most of the so-called 'rare' Maybrick material can be found in the three main modern books on the case, but ALL the Diary material can be found in Ryan's Penguin paperback of 1989.
Ryan's errors and speculative material also accounts for some of the boobs and events in the hoax Diary. Take the Diary fantasy about Michael knowing "...only too well the art of verse." THis has been inspired by Ryan's fallacy that Michael was known "...as the composer and author of many popular songs." (P20) And it was compounded by the display of alleged Ripper verse in Underwood. The truth is that not one of the huge collections of Michael's work in the British Library has lyrics written by him. He wrote the music; others wrote the verses.
Again, the Diary fantasy about Maybrick toying with thoughts of suicide is based on Ryan's revelation that it was rumoured that in defending Florence Sir Charles Russell would use Maybrick's will to prove "...that he was determined to kill himself." (P141) This idea was possibly inspired by the opening words of the will, which read: "In case I die before having made a regular & proper will in legal form" THUS THREE BOOKS WERE ENOUGH. |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 05 June 2000 - 05:44 pm | | I may be stating the obvious,but does it really matter how difficult it would be to research the Diary's details from modern sources? O.K.,It may have made any forgery easier than some would claim, but the fact the details are available does not prove it's a fake (or that it's not)
Steve s. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 07:06 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
‘Surely you need independent evidence rather than relying on your own private feelings that "OK, she lied in the past but now she's saying what I want to believe so obviously she's telling the truth now."’
I agree with you that, without any independent evidence, none of us are in a position to decide (especially as Keith himself isn’t) that Anne is ‘obviously’ telling the truth at any point in her testimony. I still can’t make a decision, based on the evidence I’ve read so far, either about Anne’s character and abilities, or from a practical point of view, whether Anne could have forged the diary or not. It stands to reason that, for those who already believe beyond doubt that she had any involvement in the forgery, she has indeed, as Paul Begg puts it, been ‘lying through [her] teeth’, every time she has ever talked about the diary. And Janice’s reasoning, that any analysis of the timing or motives for Anne’s lies would be unproductive for her, is totally justified IMHO if she is completely satisfied that Anne created or co-authored the diary. But for those of us still getting piles from sitting on the fence for so long, unable to make the pole vault either to Anne being a JtR diary forger who has lied constantly for over eight years, or a rather ordinary person, with a peculiar family possession, who has voluntarily admitted to a deception which she kept up for about two and a half years, the puzzle remains and there is work to be done if we are interested in getting at the whole truth.
Hi Steve,
I agree that, however available the details were to the forgers, this in itself does not appear to prove, without Peter’s ‘independent evidence’, that these were the sources used or that Anne, Mike, Billy or whoever, were the ones to use them. But I’m not sure if Melvin has stated as fact that this is how it WAS done, or how it was PROBABLY done, or simply how it COULD have been done. In any case, he has done a very thorough trawl through all the relevant literature, and deserves to be congratulated for his research into this aspect of the diary mystery.
What IMHO has yet to be established is that his is the only possible explanation of how the diary could have been written.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 08:14 am | | Thank you Guy, thank you Paul. If you had 40 pages
to wade through, posted in 1997, I'm not surprised
you couldn't easily remember the details!
And thank you, Melvin, for clarifying your
present position on diary source material. I'm
sorry I gave the impression I keep myself au fait
with diary discissions. I certainly don't, though
I take the sort of general interest in what Keith
Skinner and Shirley Harrison are doing that I
would extend to any friend.
Martin |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 08:48 am | | Hi Martin!
It's true, as Paul says, that Melvin's article takes some wading through if you're looking for a specific point. It is however (IMO) a very robust response to Paul Feldman's claim that the research required to construct the "Diary" would be so extensive and, in certain instances, esoteric, as to render it a near-impossible task, and hence that the item in question must be a geniune document, written with "inside" knowledge, by the actual murderer. As such, I would recommend it to anyone interested in seeing how the Diary could (vide Caroline's post above) have been assembled from a few modern sources, incorporating in the process a number of demonstrable errors.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 09:10 am | | Dear Paul:
Glad to see you're feeling well enough to post again from time to time. Your input is always appreciated. Please see below, where I responded to you and Keith together.
Dear Keith:
Regarding the test--Please refer back to the paragraph above the one you quoted. I was still speaking of the physical tests made on the paper & ink. I thought you believed the diary was an old forgery (around 1920s?) rather than a modern
fake--based on those tests. If I mistook the meaning of some of your old posts, or confused your statements with someone else's, I deeply apologize.
As to why I can give Maybrick consideration as a suspect, without connecting him to the diary ... I know I can't learn anything with a closed mind. Maybrick was alive in 1888, over the age of 12 and under a 100, and living in England--all the requirements some folks need before shoving someone (especially males) into the Pin the Tail on a Victorian arena. Because of Flo's trial there are a fair amount of facts and stats available on James, which is all some folks need to start writing a book on this Victorian or that one. It's quite possible Maybrick would have been dragged into Suspectville without the diary ever showing up. No matter how ridiculous they seem at first glance, I give each candidate a certain amount of my research time ... eventually. Because being fair and being thorough are the only ways I know to conduct historical research.
Keith & Paul: We're having a major communication problem. I can't address many of the issues/questions in your posts because they're rooted in views I do not hold. Below is what I do believe.
1. Anne lied. (She admitted this to the public.)
.... a) First, to her husband ("private deception")
.... b) Later, by not speaking up before the diary was published ("lied to the whole world").
2. She profited financially from her lie.
3. Totaling #1 & #2 = I take everything she said afterwards with a grain of salt.
4. I examined each successive diary event (as related by Anne) and found each one by itself to be dubious or improbable.
5. Adding all these together, I find Anne's current account of the diary origins highly unlikely. BUT --
6. That's not the same as Proving she's still lying.
7. No one can prove she's telling the truth by using her own statements as "evidence" of her motives.
8. No one (to the best of my knowledge) has independent proof of Anne's motives.
9. Knowing Anne's motives is important to me, but --
10. I can not (at this point in time) evaluate her motives, because I don't know what they were/are. Neither does anyone else.
My comments do not mean the diary provenance is "of absolutely no interest" to me, or "immaterial," or "irrelevant." I will go into more depth later on what I did mean by "more pressing research." (Hopefully in a less confusing manner next time.)
As for now, I'll skip the after dinner coffee ... it's well past my bed time.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 09:17 am | | CAZ: Regarding your post to me on Monday, June 5, 2000 - 03:59 am ...
Nice Try, but it won't fly.
Janice |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 10:05 am | | Dear Janice, many thanks for your good wishes.
I'm not sure what communication problem we are having.. You seem to be saying that if someone lies then you dismiss them thereafter as being thoroughly untrustworthy and you do this irrespective of why they lied. That seems to be the implication of your statement: 'And frankly, I don't find discussions productive that speculate on whether she was a "manipulative, scheming" liar, or a poor-pitiful-abused-wife liar, or whatever. The fact that Anne is a liar stands on its own two feet just fine without any adjectives.'
If that is what you are saying then I don't agree with you. I think the motive for the lie has to enter into the assessment of the individual. I have no more idea whether Ann is lying than you do, but I don't think it is any more right to dismiss her because she has at some point demonstrably lied than it is to accept she's telling the truth because she tells us she is. What we do is asses the evidence for and against either proposition. Keith has done this and has concluded that she is telling the truth. For him, at least, discussion of when Ann lied and why she lied is crucial.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 02:35 pm | | At the risk of sticking my head above the parapet and getting it shot off...
What is the current state of the 'diary' forensics? |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 03:24 pm | | Hi Paul, Janice, et al.:
I think Paul's analogy of parents telling their children that the present-bringer on Christmas Eve is a jolly old elf in a red costume is not akin to the much more major lie or deception that Anne Graham pulled off in presenting the Diary to the world under the pretence that it had come through Tony Devereaux, and maintaining that deception for over two years. Yes, couples do lie to each other and perhaps she thought that the main duping that took place was to pull one over on her then husband, Mike Barrett. However, she might have known that the name "Jack the Ripper" is evocative and that people sooner or later would want to know what was the genesis of the document that she put into Mike's hands by this subterfuge. As I understand it, she had some hope that Mike might use it as the basis for a work of fiction. However, she might know from experience that the garrulous Mike would spill the beans and let everyone know that there was an "original" document that was behind his work of fiction. This is supposing, of course, that she is now telling something like the truth that the Diary has been in her family at least since 1950.
Perhaps Melvin Harris is correct though that the Diary has been concocted much more recently than 1950. It interested me that he replied in the recent interview I did with him for Ripper Notes that he did not think Mike has the wherewithal to have forged the Diary. What then about Anne? I know that Melvin contends that the Diary content was derived from three recent books. Does Melvin then think that the internal content of the Diary precludes the possibility that the Diary could be as old as, say, 1950 as Anne says?
Chris George |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 06:28 pm | | Just echoing Roger O'Donnell's posting (now two heads above parapet).
Steve s. |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 07:59 pm | | Dear Paul:
As to our communication failure ... You said:
"You seem to be saying that if someone lies then you dismiss them thereafter."
I refer you to my #4 in my last post:
"4. I examined each successive diary event (as related by Anne) and found each one by itself to be dubious or improbable."
How on earth could I examine any of Anne's statements if I had already dismissed them?
After careful consideration and study I arrived at the belief that it is highly likely that Anne's later statements are untrue. That's not the same as saying I'm 100% positive. Therefore, that means I believe there is a small chance that Anne is now telling the truth.
So, despite Anne's lie, I remain open-minded to any of her statements now or in the future. Paul, I have never lied to you or the public at large, so can't you please extend me the same courtesy that I give Anne ... open your mind to hear what I'm actually saying, instead of reading between the lines?
I will not go into discussing the fine points of whether or not one should factor in a person's motives when assessing their statements--until we clear up this misunderstanding of my views.
Was it Wilde that said America and England were two great nations divided by a common language?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 08:33 pm | | Janice-- I think it was that other Anglo-Irishman, G.B. Shaw.
RJP
PS. Why are Mike Barrett's "Confessions" widely ignored? His very detailed account of obtaining the album at an auction seems believable, and the forensic examinatin said that the page preceeding the first page of the Diary had photos on it--which coincides with Barrett's story. |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 09:29 pm | | CAZ: Received. It is being pondered.
Janice |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 06 June 2000 - 11:46 pm | | Ashling and R.J.:
It was my understanding that it was Winston Churchill who said that America and England were two great nations divided by a common language. Possibly it is one of those quotations or actions that is ascribed to a number of celebrities or wordsmiths? Anyway, we should cut Winnie some slack, the poor fellow did after all have an American mother, the former Jennie Jerome, and a Brit for a father, Lord Randolph Churchill, who, God save us, right or wrong (make that probably wrong) is counted as a Ripper suspect.
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
