|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 8, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 8, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 03:06 am |        | Hi Janice,
Thanks. I feel a wee bit better now I know you're pondering.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed about the 'divided by a common language' bit, while writing out 100 times: 'Must do better'. (Not easy doing both at once!)
Love and best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 03:17 am | | Hi RJ,
Perhaps the problem with Mike's various stories, about how he produced the diary, might have something to do with the lack of Peter Birchwood's pesky 'independent evidence' again.
You'd think there would be someone somewhere who could be found to confirm the auction story if it happened that way.
But as we have seen, the believable stuff has to be proved or disproved in the same thorough way as all the improbable or downright unlikely bits before any of us are sure about anything.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 05:21 am | | Janice:- I hadn't appreciated that I was reading between the lines. You wrote: '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.' Those words seem to be saying that a lie is a lie and that it doesn't matter what reason the person had for lying, which in turn helps determine what kind of person the liar is. If that is not what you meant, then fine. If it is what you meant, then I disagree with you one hundred per cent. In my opinion the reason Ann had for lying is crucial to any assessment of her deeper character and discussion on that point is not only productive, it's essential.
Chris:- you wrote: '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.'
Why not apply that reasoning to the forgers? Surely he/she/they would have realised that a garrulous, out-of-work, near-drunk with an 'I got it from a bloke down the pub' cover story that was so lame even the village idiot would realise it wouldn't run, would prove so implausible that it would set alarm bells ringing from day one and probably the dash project at the off?
If we assume that people logically think ahead then your argument as quoted above is perfectly reasonable, but if we allow that people often (and perhaps generally)act spontaneously and rashly, with little thought beyond the immediate, then I don't think it is as reasonable as it sounds. And frankly, if anyone was going to try and foresee the possible consequences of their actions then I think it is far more likely to have been the forgers than a wife whose mind was possibly focused on rescuing her disintegrating marriage by using the 'diary' to fire her husband's imagination (if, of course, that is what she was doing).
What concerns me, though, is that Ann's stated reason for giving the 'diary' to Mike could be true whether it had been in her family since 1950 or whether she forged it herself in or post-1987.
Assume that Mike wasn't party to the forgery. Ann forges the 'diary' for no reason other than to help Mike recover his self-esteem by researching and writing a story? She gave the 'diary' to Tony D., just as she says, not having to worry about the implausibility of the 'I got it from a bloke in the pub' story because the only person being 'duped' was Mike, who did get it from a bloke in the pub. When Mike starts to think in terms of publishing the 'diary' itself, there are arguments (just as both Mike and Ann have said - they said it to me!), but Ann thinks that no harm will be done if they keep to the Tony D. story - Tony D. having conveniently died in the meantime - and maybe she thinks her 'crude' forgery will be quickly revealed as such and the whole thing will be forgotten. But the whole thing spins out of control, a book is published, the marriage falls apart and Feldman is on the case making phone calls to everyone… Melvin Harris has written bitterly of his own experiences with Feldman, so imagine how the less robust and experienced friends and family of the Barretts would have felt. At this point Ann generously takes the heat off everyone by focusing the attention on herself. With the help of her dad, who lies to help his daughter, the story is concocted that the 'diary' had been in their family since 1950. Which brings us to today… And so the 'diary' was forged, but was never forged with the intent of deceiving anyone except Mike Barrett, a deception which was itself well-intentioned.
I am not saying that this scenario will stand up to investigation. What I am saying is that it evolves from looking at the motives Ann could have had for lying. But overall, I simply reject the concept that because she's demonstrably lied at some point nothing Ann has said or will say can be trusted.
I also think my analogy with Santa Klaus was perfectly valid for the purpose for which it was used, namely as an illustration that everyone lies if they perceive the reason as a good one. On the other hand, I have to say that phrases like lied to the whole world and pulling off the major lie or deception are a provocative if all that happened was that Ann told a tiny lie (that the 'diary' came from Tony D.) in an effort to divert her husband from the spiralling course towards self-destruction which was, ultimately, his fate.
But I think that I shall now probably retire to my long-held previous position of an observer of these Boards rather than a commentator. |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 06:49 am | | Dear Paul:
For the third and last time. No.
Janice |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 08:16 am | | Hi All,
All this lies and deception stuff, together with RJ’s post, bringing Mike and his confessions back into the equation, made me think back to the cases of Timothy Evans and John Christie.
We probably all know the story well. Evans was hanged for murder in 1950 after confessing to killing his wife and daughter. His confession was backed up by the testimony of an apparently trustworthy prosecution witness, Christie, a former special constable in the War Reserve Police, who later admitted to killing six women, including Evans’s wife, his own, and prostitutes he had taken back to his home. Christie, whose teenage nickname was ‘Reggie no-dick’ was finally hanged in 1953.
At Evans’s trial he had maintained that his confession was intended to protect Christie who was really responsible for the deaths. Christie simply denied this, the jury decided whom they chose to believe, and history was made.
(My thanks to Robin Odell for the info from The International Murderers’ Who’s Who.)
Thankfully the police these days (and hopefully the juries too) would require a tad more than a simple soul’s confession before pressing for a prosecution, even if the confession were endorsed by an impeccable character with no such spectacular ulterior motive for getting it accepted. :-)
To provide a bit of balance (and a couple of very poor links on my part to JtR), I’ll include another snippet from Robin Odell:
‘In a further twist to the story, John Eddowes, in a book published in 1994, argued that Evans did murder both his wife and child. This implied the amazing coincidence that there were two stranglers operating independently at 10 Rillington Place.
(Told you the JtR links were poor. :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 10:10 am | | The quotation bedeviling us - according to
"English: Its Life and Times" by Robert Claiborne
(Bloomsbury, 1994) - is:
"England and America are two countries separated
by the same language." - George Bernard Shaw
Which is not to say others may not have said the
same thing, though not with the Shavian brevity.
No matter. This is an excellently-researched and
very accessible book if you've an interest in the
language; almost as good, I think, as Bill
Bryson's "The Mother Tongue."
And of course, GBS has a JTR connection, which we
all know.
I shall not muddy the waters by posting any of my
thoughts on the Diary, as I freely admit the
turns, twists and prevarications of the whole
story are far beyond me. I did have the pleasure
of chatting about it a bit with Paul during the US
Conference, and said then what I say here: I
think it is a forgery, and as such is of no use in
identifying the Ripper. I am, however, curious as
to when and how it was forged, and hope those
answers may someday be forthcoming.
The rest of you can keep your heads above the
ramparts; I am slinking back to the scullery.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 11:43 am | | Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics:
In these days, I hope that no-one is so biased so as to assume that it would be impossible for a stock-brokers secretary and ex-nurse to forge the Diary of Jack the Ripper just because she is of the female persuasion. Perhaps it's even more likely than a disabled scrap metal merchant with a dodgy past and a minor history of magazine writing. (Did anyone actually check to see if Mike wrote the piece about the Illuminati in Teen-Set Magazine? Or was it about the nearly-bottomless Kylie Minogue?)
What does seem unlikely to me is that such a work (the diary, not Kylie) should have been done with the sole purpose of keeping a marriage together. Is there any record of such a thing happening in the past? Were the Hitler Diaries forged because the author had a deep passion for Eva Braun's illegitimate daughter and wanted to impress her? Did Cliff Irving really believe that the purpose behind faking Howard Hughes' biography was so that he and Helga could live together in peace and tranquility? I suspect not. The most likely motive for this sort of forgery is a financial one.
Santa KLAUS? Is Paul a secret reader of Tom Holt? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 12:58 pm | | Hi Peter,
I happen to know several women who come up with some pretty bizarre ways of trying to keep a man interested. But I agree with you that forging a JtR diary does seem rather more unlikely than the ways I had heard of. :-)
I also agree that a woman would be quite as capable as a man at writing the thing.
But I am even more upset by Paul's Saint Nick revelation than Keith was. I asked my mum in all innocence why Father Christmas had no kids of his own to deliver presents to, and her answer gave no hint whatsoever of his non-existence. It did help however with my knowledge of how to keep a marriage going. ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 02:09 pm | | Dear Caz , as you are in touch with Keith Skinner could you direct him to the Montague Druitt board above ?
On April 20th I asked him a question about Prince Eddy's visit to Wimborne on December 17th 1888 , but communications must have been lost as no reply was recieved. The message probably disappeared from the New Messages board before he could read it.
Please Keith , give us an answer ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 02:21 pm | | Captain Owen sticks his head above the parapet again :
We all know what Mike thinks of the Diary , but - assuming Anne Barrett did not forge the Diary for a second - has Anne ever expressed the view that she believed the Diary to be a fake or forgery to anyone ? Or has she always been convinced that the Diary is genuine ? More importantly , does she believe the work to be genuine now after all the criticism of it ( writing ' The Last Victim ' may not necessarily reflect her private opinions ).
Is anyone in a position to answer these questions ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 02:35 pm | | Hi, Simon:
As I noted in my answer to Keith Skinner, in her Radio Merseyside interview of October 4, 1995, Anne does not say the Diary is genuine, just that it has undergone tests and is the subject of research.
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 02:59 pm | | | Thats very non-committal , isn't it ? I'm suprised that she didn't say she BELIEVES the Diary to be genuine - but then maybe she knows the truth about its origins already. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 06:26 pm | | Hi Simon,
Where have you been, me old matey?
I will gladly pass your comments on to Keith.
IMHO, if Anne was involved in the forgery, she knows the Diary is not genuine. I don't know what she really feels about the Diary right now, but if she wasn't involved in forging it, I don't see how she, or anyone else for that matter, could ever be accused of CLAIMING it to be genuine. No one can possibly know for sure, so it's doubtful if anyone, even Feldy, could be condemned for his 'beliefs' in the legal sense.
Please bear with me because I've just had a rather large Baileys, Cointreau, Amaretto and Tia Maria. (Hic!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 06:31 pm | | To R.J.Palmer From Keith Skinner
Dear R.J.
Just to reassure you that I’m certainly not ignoring any of Mike Barrett’s “Confessions”, Statements or Affidavits. The content has to be adjudged seriously and where possible, tested. I suspect where most people, (excluding Paul Begg), probably disagree with me, is that I passionately believe it is crucial to try and understand/determine why Mike should make so many conflicting statements.
The detailed account of his obtaining the “album” at an auction, has been investigated and strongly refuted by the auction house. At the ‘C&D’ interview, Mike had every opportunity to produce the auction ticket for the Diary, which he repeatedly insisted he possessed, - but failed to do so. Why?
Regarding Mike’s professed knowledge about the Diary containing photos, it should be noted this revelation came after The Sunday Times (September 19th 1993) huge feature on the Diary, which included reference to Baxendale’s report:-
“Baxendale concluded that the pages which had been removed had had material, possibly photographs, glued to them.”
I have no evidence that Mike Barrett ever read this article. I’m only assuming he did because there is a photograph of him, presumably taken by The Sunday Times, and includes quite a few quotes by him. But my assumption is not definite proof – so Barrett’s knowledge could well be the type of inside knowledge Melvin Harris states that Barrett possesses – and, as such, is another pointer towards the Diary being a modern hoax.
Hope this may help.
Best wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 03:27 am | | Good morning campers,
Just re-read my last post, written last night under certain influences. Please could everyone disregard from 'IMHO.... to ....(non)sense.'
With a clear head I can see it reads like a lot of old nonsense. I know what I meant to say, it just didn't come out right. L
Sorry folks.
I'm now going down the garden to eat worms....I don't deserve cornflakes. J
Love,
Caz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 07:26 am | | To Keith Skinner--
Thank you very much for your comments about Mike Barrett's 'Confessions'. They were indeed helpful and enlightening.
I think Stewart Evans might have said it best back on May 9th: "There may be a long wait ahead" for a conclusion to this mystery.
Just for fun, I was mucking around tonight in the details of the old 'Piltdown Man' hoax. It doesn't look promising. After nearly 90 years, there is still much debate about the perpetrators. The list of possible conspirators, rather than cystalizing, forever grows, and now even includes Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (a neighbor to Dawson the archeologist) as one of the prime suspects. The world can be a sordid place.
Well, I tend to think the Diary is of recent origin, but I have no doubt that human motives can be complex and contorted, and a hoaxer is a particularly odd fish. There is the student who concocts evidence to please his idol, the dreamy girl who invents fairies in the garden, the bored prankster, the outsider who longs for instant reputation or a sense of belonging, the serious researcher who creates evidence to prove something that SHOULD be true... Is money the prime motivator? I somehow doubt it.
I'm willing to concede that we dabbling on the outside may not have enough information to make an informed conclusion about the hoaxer(s). So I think I'll slip back now into silence and contemplate other things, such as the date on M.J.Druitt's headstone.
I'm very much looking forward to "The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook". I'm sure it will be a great help to us aficianados scattered around the globe.
Best regards,
RJP
PS. Thanks Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 09:59 am | | From Keith Skinner To Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Dear Christopher-Michael
Out of interest, accepting you think the Diary to be a forgery, why are you curious as to when and how it was forged?
Please don’t misunderstand me, because I am delighted that you do think this way. But why do you not accept it is an obvious modern hoax, created by Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, at some point after 1987?
Do you reject the proposition that it is impossible for the Diary to have existed prior to 1987 – and for it to have done so means it has to be genuine?
And if you do reject that proposition, could Mike and Anne have jointly forged it at some point between 1975 (when they married) and 1987?
Were the relevant Ripper books available?
But don’t lose any sleep over it!
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 10:01 am | | From Keith Skinner To Janice
Dear Janice
Thank you for your post.
Regarding the test. Quite right. I did tell Stewart (Evans) on May 8th 2000 that I could not get the Diary back to being older than the 1920s and Stewart kindly posted accordingly. I have no empirical evidence to discount McNeil’s Ion Migration analysis – but even if I did, and I removed McNeil from the equation, it would only slide me up to Christmas 1950, which is when Anne’s father said he took possession of the Diary. I accept there is no corroboration for this statement.
I’m afraid I find it a little bit difficult to accept your rationale for including James Maybrick as a suspect, (even a highly improbable one), without some sort of contemporary documentation connecting him to the police investigation – or even a documented contemporary rumour inexplicably linking him to the murders. If this means I have a closed mind to all sorts of possibilities, unless there is some degree of evidential support, then I’m not going to disagree with you, choosing, rather, to preserve my sanity!
Finally – could you just confirm for me that you do believe Anne’s “private deception” of her husband occurred and you do believe Anne lied to the world? If this is what you genuinely believe, based on what you have read, could you then just clarify for me how Anne privately deceived her husband and how she lied to the world? What form did this deceit and lie take? I’m not, at this point, seeking a motive or justification for either, I just want to be absolutely clear that I understand what it is that Anne has done, upon which you base your belief that, on Anne’s own admission, she privately deceived her husband and subsequently lied to the world?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 10:04 am | | From Keith Skinner To Chris George
Dear Chris
I’m now hopelessly confused by what happens on Christmas Eve – and I thought it was Martin Fido who said that America and England were two great nations divided by a common language. He’s said everything else!
Just to pick up on your post of Tuesday June 6th 2000 @ 03.24pm…
Push your supposition a little bit further that Anne Graham pulled one over on Mike Barrett.
How then does the Diary end up with Mike Barrett?
And for the purpose of this hypothesis, take Tony Devereux out of the picture.
You are quite correct in reporting that Melvin Harris does not believe Mike Barrett has the capacity to compose the text of the Diary. Did you ask Melvin what writings he had seen of Mike’s to reach this conclusion? I think it only fair to point out that Melvin has also always maintained:-
“For my part, I have never believed that Mike forged the Diary on his own, as he claimed. I have stated this many times. But he did show some signs of inside knowledge, and any scraps that he offered were worth checking on.” (Guide Through The Labyrinth October 1997).
I can tell you now that Melvin and most Ripper experts will affirm that the internal content of the Diary does preclude the possibility it could have existed before 1987.
Now, Melvin has also stated:-
“The key figure in keeping this hoax alive is, of course, Anne Graham.” (Guide Through The Labyrinth October 1997).
Hence my concentration on Anne Graham. What bothers me is that, in spite of the evidence against the lady, together with everything that has been thrown at her by her husband and others, why do I believe her story?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 10:05 am | | From Keith Skinner To Simon Owen
Dear Simon
The best person to answer all of your questions about Anne Graham – is Anne Graham. Why not write to her, c/o her publishers?
Will respond to your Druitt enquiry in due course – I think it’s just a question of letting you know the name and date of the newspaper?
Best Wishes
Keith |
|
|
|
|
