|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 14, 2000
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 12:51 pm |        | OK Paul, let us see if you can answer some questions as well as put them.
Neither Anne nor Mike have given consistent diary stories. Why are you so interested in who physically scratched the page? Why don't you tell us whether the handwriting of either of the parties looks anything like the diary? Why don't you tell us why you think that the diary is an old forgery. Surely by now you must have some opinion about it. Don't spend your time sitting on the fence: come out and tell us why Anne's story should be considered as being true.
Do you really think that you have to be an experienced forger to make a living by it? Aperson may break into a house, committing burglary for the first time in their life and yet make a big haul. Would you say to that burglar: "there are less dangerous options available?" Similarly with a forger. They get the idea and do it hoping to make some money. And could you draw my attention to Cliff Irving's pre-Hughes "accomplished" forgery? Maybe I've misread "Project Octavio."
What evidence do you have that Mike and Anne never forged anything or never had any connections to persons who may have forged anything? I don't know anything about their previous life "for a fact" but I suspect that you or your colleagues do. Why don't you tell us that all Feldy's comments concerning Mike's "confrontation with the police" in 1974 and the mysterious matter of "the confidential reports strange information" about Anne are in fact nonsense? If anyone knows the truth of these matters it has to be those involved with Feldy's "team."
I have a case right now where a man truly believed that he was the heir to a £60million estate but could not prove his relationship. He went to a church and added details supporting his claim to an old record. He committed forgery without worrying about complex scientific tests but made the mistake of using a steel pen rather than a quill and not copying early writing style. His ink however was homemade to an old recipe. Ordinary people think of the obvious, not of tests which they may never have heard about. You are a sophisticated author with a wide experience of scholarship. The forgery you might commit would be totally different to that before us now but even you might not consider making your forgery proof against tests you had never even heard of.
Give us the facts behind your "We simply can't shake it" statement.
Surely its you and your colleagues who can't face any criticism of your work with the diary project. You seem to want me to lie to those few actually reading this. I honestly say that I cannot make a judgement as to who actually put the ink to the paper and you argue with that. I am not accusing anyone of writing the thing because I haven't the experience to check the writing or access to the originals. And yet you have the unmittigated gall to accuse me of backing away from a judgement. Would you be pleased if I told you that I had studied Anne Graham's writing and was convinced that she had written the diary as indeed Mike Barrett has accused her of doing? No, you would take ask me for my qualifications, what written material from Anne had I used, whether I had her permission to undertake the tests, if I had checked the original diary rather than a copy...you would go on and on. You know both parties; show us why either of them could not have "penned" the diary. Please take all the time you need.
And lastly, there is still, in this best of all possible worlds, the possibility that the diary is old. Perhaps one day we will hear from an old friend of Anne's in Australia that she had told him in the 1970's that her father had the diary of Jack the Ripper...
I think it is only fair that you face and answer the problems others find with your hypothesis, just as you expect others to face and answer the problems you find in theirs. Questions have been asked. They await your answer. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 12:54 pm | | | Ah, David, I did once send Martin a Christmas card in which I had copied out in Latin the words of "Waltzing Matilda", but that is the nearest we've come to wander Oxford talking Latin - as I tried to indicate, neither Martin nor myself being especially noted as teatotallers! I was simply trying to get myself out inadvertanly suggesting a knowledge of Latin that I don't actually have, but it looks like I managed only to dig myself a bigger hole. A case of incidis in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 12:58 pm | | Obviously nobody is a Thomas Dolby fan here...
Caroline , I think ' erat ' is the correct word , but I can't remember if its used in the song , ' est ' seems to scan better ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 01:32 pm | | Hi Simon,
Q.E.D: "which was to be proved". Hence 'erat'.
'est' is the present tense.
And the present does seem to be rather tense, does it not? ;-)
Ah, I remember those romantic poems by Catullus, something about his loved one and birds in cages, but I may be confused with Kenneth Williams in Carry On Cleo, saying: "I came, I saw, I conked out", or even "Infamy infamy, they've all got it 'infamy'." :-)
Somehow I can't imagine Paul and Martin reciting Catullus fondly to each other in a leafy park or down the boozer....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 01:34 pm | | Peter:- "Why are you so interested in who physically scratched the page?" Come off it! You claim that Mike and Ann forged the 'diary', therefore one or the other actually penned the damn thing. But if the handwriting doesn't belong to either of them then you either have to expand the net to encompass another forger - who? - or some allowance must be given to the possibility that Ann's story is in whole or in part true. Either way, if neither of them penned the 'diary' then your claim/theory is not correct. You have a theory, that theory is being tested. You are being asked questions, just as you have asked them of others. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't want to answer them. Instead you prevaricate with stuff about what Paul Feldman has said and now avoid the issue by firing back a load of questions of your own. Well I'm not buying it, Peter. I think I and everyone else can draw our own conclusions from your actions and we'd best leave it at that!
Finally, as for my 'unmittigated gall' to accuse you of backing away from a judgement, I am not accusing you of backing away from a judgement, but am accusing you of not facing up to what could be a fatal problem with your argument. Because the handwriting does not match the 'diary' there exists a possibility that neither Mike not Ann penned it. If they didn't, where does that leave you? What worth your lines of reasoning then? But do you face up to this problem? No. You simply say you're not qualified to make a judgement. Well, as said, if Feldy had said that you'd have gone for his throat. If it is said of you then it is unmittigated gall.
Okay, fine. I think we all know where you are coming from and where we stand. So, as said, we'll leave it at that. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 01:35 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Paul Begg
Dear Paul
In defence of Peter Birchwood, I do not think he has ever expressed, with “absolute certainty” that Mike and Anne were the forgers.
What he has said about the handwriting is as follows:-
“I have no experience in forensic document examination so am not qualified to have a definite opinion. All I can say is that the normal [my underlining] handwriting of the pair doesn’t look like the diary writers.”
But would you expect it to?
And has Peter Birchwood seen sufficient of their normal handwriting to gain an indication – even if only a superficial, unqualified, indefinite, opinion – as to what their normal handwriting style is?
If either Mike or Anne are adept at disguising their hand, over 63 pages, then would it be unreasonable to assume they couldn’t adopt another hand, to avoid detection, when the occasion arose. Or is this something with which they considered they would not be confronted by cynical investigators?
However, in the light of openly and honestly admitting that he is not qualified to have a definite opinion about handwriting, Peter Birchwood has flatly stated:-
“The diary is not in his [James Maybrick’s] handwriting.”
So – it will be interesting to learn the basis of this assertion.
I suspect it will be, Kenneth Rendell, Maureen Owens, Sue Iremonger and Melvin Harris.
In which case – accepting their expert opinion – is it not fair to examine and consider what else they said about the handwriting – and apply that to our knowledge of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham?
Best Wishes
Keith
From Keith Skinner To Paul Begg
Dear Paul
straw poll time
Exploring your hypothesis that Tony Devereux and Anne Graham were the forgers, (implying there must have been some sort of relationship between them – some sort of background whereby they knew each other), motive is financial gain, (50% Tony/50% Anne), and Mike is to be used as an innocent patsy.
Devereux gives the Diary to Mike, (but doesn’t bother to tell him the ‘cover’ story), and Tony and Anne then wait for Mike to “do something with it.” Mike presumably could have thrown it in the Mersey?
Devereux dies, (giving us our first hard date - August 1991), and Mike eventually approaches Doreen Montgomery, (giving us our second hard date - March 1992). During the interim 7-8 months, Mike becomes obsessed with the Diary, (August 1991 to March 1992), but Anne loses confidence in the whole fraud and tries to destroy the diary. Or possibly she tells Mike the truth, that she has forged it with Tony and that he, (Mike), was being used as a patsy. Either way, Mike decides to go public with the Diary.
Their marriage falls apart, but with the smell of anticipated 25% royalty payments in her nostrils, Anne ‘pole vaults’ over Mike’s confession that he forged the Diary – and invents a new provenance for the Diary linking it to her family.
If Devereux had not died, presumably his ‘cover’ story would have been fairly convincing – and obviously it could have nothing to do with Anne’s family!
And if he had not died, why would Mike, to whom he had given the Diary, share any of the money with him?
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 01:55 pm | | Keith:- I appreciate that Peter Birchwood hasn't stated with absolute certainty that Mike and Ann were the forgers, but he has outlined a scenario in which they jointly forged the 'diary' for the purpose of financial gain. As Caz has remarked, Peter states his reasoning as if it was fact. However, accepting for arguments sake that his hypothesis was correct, you asked which of them actually penned the document. This was a perfectly reasonable question and one which Peter could have speculatively answered. The question was also pertinent because I wondered whether the evidence suggested that Mike's didn't participate in the forgery and know the 'diary' was a forgery.
All Peter is being asked to do is address the possibility that neither Mike nor Ann actually penned the 'diary' and see how his theory stands up or maybe otherwise pay for a professional handwriting analysis to prove his point. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 02:03 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Karoline L
Karoline
You did not include my name on your posting list, so I hope you will not take exception to my coming in on the discussion.
You lay open three options to explore. I can only address myself to the third:-
"...the diary was written post 1987, by a slightly boozy scrap metal dealer and his brighter but not very highly educated wife."
Within this section you advance the possibility that "Boozy Mike and smart, but not too smart Anne just decided to try and make a buck."
From this proposition, you state facts, raise questions to meet these facts and offer what you believe to be the probable answers.
Profiles emerge of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham - which may have nothing to do with their reality - but which, nevertheless, is something for us to consider.
Mike is represented as a foolish, drunken, hopeless incompetent, who wants to get back at his wife and who has never been any good at thinking ahead.
Anne has enough natural cunning to deceive a few people, if not enough foresight to make long term plans without getting into a mess. She is a smart (bright) but not very highly educated woman who changes her story and says the Diary has been in her family for years, to undercut her husband's confession and safeguard her possession of an artefact that might prove very lucrative.
The reason she did not tell this much better story from the beginning is because she hadn't thought of it in the beginning. (I'm not clear whether you mean here that Anne did not have sufficient intelligence to realise that an old oral tradition, connecting her family to Battlecrease House, might have been useful to use - or whether the story is pure invention and was locked into place within 20 days of Feldman (and myself) establishing contact with her?).
If you are perfectly content this is an accurate portrayal of these two people and see no necessity or requirement to have your beliefs tested or validated. If you are satisfied these two people forged the Diary and got some things right and some things wrong because they are human beings and this is the way human beings operate. If it sits easily with you that their subsequent behaviour from March 1992 to the present day, is easily explicable in terms of knowledge of guilt, panic, expediency and greed. If there is no mystery or human puzzle, for you, that cannot be answered by a few sweeping generalisations - then I truly apologise for wasting your time.
Keith |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 02:39 pm | | Caeli - mea Lesbia, Lesbia illa, illa Lesbia quem
Catullus plus quam (I forget what - oculos?)
amavit.... nunc.... glubit (the horrible sons of
somebody-or-other at the crossroads).
'Glubit' was too nasty a word for my school
dictionary to translate. I think she was giving
blow jobs.
Offhand that's all the Catullus I can pull out
from memory.
Karoline - I haven't ever budged from the 1992
position you outlined so splendidly and logically.
The world moves on, but I remain an old
stick-in-the-mud.
Peter - Surely Paul has made it clear over and
over again that the reason he cannot commit
himself to a final position is that Keith, who
knows Ann better than any of the rest of us, and
whose integrity is beyond challenge, finds her
persuasive, and Paul is not prepared to put
abstract and theoretical arguments before Keith's
judgement of personality.
Caroline Anne - No I didn't! I said that though
Liz Stride's clerkly young man sounded Lupinish I
didn't think Lupin would quit Daisy Mutlar and
Lillie Girl for the likes of Liz!
Any questions to me on the diary will only be
answered on receipt of a new pair of yellow socks
(I'm short of daffodil ones at present, though
reasonably off for Whistler's favourite shade of
egg-yolk) and an sae.
Martin F |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 03:23 pm | | Hi Caz,
i didn't know you had given up your idea of Weedon Grossmith as JTR. Apologies for not keeping up with events.
probably a good move on your part. He wasn't the strongest suspect was he!
Interesting idea though.
You say:
'I am now looking for proof of who forged the diary'.
I think this is a really good move, and congratulations on having the guts to do such a thing.
I notice that both you and Paul state that Mike's and Anne's handwriting is nothing like the writing in the diary.
Does this mean their handwriting has already been professionally analysed?
If so - what result?
if not - will you be trying to get this done Caz?
What does Keith think about this course of action?
If such an analysis were to happen; and if it demonstrated that (say) Anne's writing did resemble the diary-script - would you, Paul, Keith, anyone, take this as proof that she was the forger?
or would it just be another point to quibble over?
What would you, Paul, Keith (or anyone), regard as proof of who forged the diary?
Paul -
ummm...i have a feeling i have offended you. I'm sorry, really I am.
I didn't mean to take the whole thing back to 1992. I'm just slightly behind events, and trying to catch up.
Don't be cross, and try to bear with me.
I hadn't realised that all of you diary-buffs had finally decided it WASN'T genuine (I am obviously very behind), so apologies for that. And thanks Caz, for putting me straight.
I gather you all think it's most probably an old forgery.
I'm not sure that I follow the reasoning here.
What you seem to be saying is;
1.the diary is too good to be forged by a drunken scrap metal dealer; and
2. too BAD to have been forged by someone as smart as Anne - and
3. too improbable to have been forged by anyone after the disaster of the Hitler Diaries.
ergo - it's much more likely to be an old forgery.
Forgive me - but this makes almost no sense to me at all.
Am i missing something?
Are there better arguments i haven't noticed?
Paul - you have said more than once how improbable it is that people without the skill to do a good forgery would try to do one at all.
You obviously see this as a crucial argument.
But, I wonder where you get your touchingly logical view of human nature?
Since when has being very very bad at something stopped people from doing it?
The prisons are full of bad burglars, bad murderers - and yes, bad forgers - who did it anyway, because they were too dumb or too greedy, or too cocksure to realise how bad they were.
That's the way it is in the real world.
However good their reasons for lying might be, however illogical it all is; however many hopeless gaffs they made - doesn't add up to squat as 'proof' they did or didn't didn't forge the diary.
All it proves is that IF they did it - they weren't very good at it.
And however improbable it may or may not seem - is it really less likely than that some anonymous policeman in the early years of the last century forged a diary - then hid it in a cupboard?
Now that really does seem hard to believe.
At least that's my ignorant outsider's perspective.
if i'm wrong - be gentle with me.
Karoline |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 08:57 pm | | Thank you, Caesar and Pompey, for setting the record straight.
Carpe diem,
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 09:43 pm | | To Keith Skinner from CMD -
I apologise for taking some time to respond to
you, Keith, but looking over some of the posts of
the last few days here, I have been a bit afraid
of returning to the fray! I do believe I am
acquainted and/or friendly with almost everyone
here, but the Diary always seems to bring out both
the best and worst in people (which is one of the
things I have against it). In any event -
You asked me for some of my thoughts on the Diary
(and forgive me for not quoting exactly - I've a
horrid streaming summer cold and can't concentrate
for too long at a stretch); I would ask both you
and anyone bored enough to read this to keep in
mind what I say is my own opinion, and written
from a rather ignorant lay view. I will thus not
address tests and investigations of which I know
little and can comment less.
My major dissatisfaction with the Diary is simply
that it is too good to be true. It reads like a
novel, beginning with a "hook," having the
requisite amounts of sex, violence and madness and
the perfect cliche motive of a cheating wife
driving a husband to jealousy and murder, leading
to a plea for forgiveness and redemption at the
end. It is, moreover, the diary of the best-known
unknown killer in the world, and a one-off (ha!)
example of something I believe to be unique in the
criminal world - a journal kept by a killer at the
time he is killing (apologies if I am wrong). If
I were going to forge such a thing, Jack is the
man I would pick.
Do I think it recent? It might be, if we consider
such things as the "tin box" and MJKs heart, among
other things. It might not be, if we consider the
Diary's attribution of Maybrick as the author of
the Ripper letters; after all, such was received
wisdom when I first started researching the case.
Tests have, so far as I know, proven inconclusive
to the general public, and authorities can be
found to argue on both sides of the question. It
seems to me that much - though not all - informed
Ripper opinion is now coming to the conclusion
that the Diary is a hoax and is moving on to the
question of who forged it and when.
My interest in the Ripper case would not change
one iota whether the Diary is real or fake; the
identity of Saucy Jack has never concerned me.
The Diary itself does not particularly concern me
beyond the obvious question of whether or not it
is real; I have no interest in speculating as to
the motives and machinations of the Barrett clan.
So my questions remain as they always have:
If the Diary is real - why can't it be
comclusively proven real? Why can't a
straightforward (or, at least, one I understand)
story seem to emerge from the mouths of Mike, Ann
&c.?
If it is fake - why can't it be conclusively
proven fake? When was it done? If recently, why
can't we trace the forgers? If an old forgery,
who were the forgers and how did they come by
their information?
If pressed, I suppose my thoughts on the whole
contremps would be a cross between Karoline and
Paul, but I would be hard-pressed to choose
between them. Annoying as this must be to a
professional like yourself, my ultimate verdict is
that the Diary simply doesn't "feel" right. Such
a statement immensely grates at me, as I have
often chastised others for going with "feelings"
rather than hard fact, yet that is my current
stance. I am afraid if I tried any longer
explanation, I would not only display massive
ignorance, but irritate beytond measure the good
folk who post here.
So, happy that we are speaking - albeit through a
third party - and wishing you continued success, I
am
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 03:38 am | | Thank You Paul,
'Lapsus' is a word we also use in Dutch, so I dd know what it meant, except for the 'calammi'. Thanks I'm a sentence richer.
Sorry can't really believe Romans had daily conversations as they wrote. How could one ever know what he's gonna precisely say three sentences later, unless it's a speach?
In translation I always threw away half of the sentences, ignored many times the forms, because if I translated as it should have been it all looked like mumble jumble to me. But what was getting me an 'A' every time?
Admittingly I can see only one advantage in Latin: not the vocabulary but the logic of the language applied in everyday thinking - look at the past, look at the future, and apply to the now.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 04:04 am | | Hi Martin,
Bloody hell! You take me right back to 1969 with your 'mea Lesbia' recital. (I'll skip over the 'Glu-bit' though if I may. :-))
Yeah, sorry, I should have acknowledged your references to Daisy and Lillie. I'm not very good at keeping up with the Cummings and Gowings....
I hope you receive a host of golden daffodil socks very soon...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 04:55 am | | | Martin & Caz:- Martin Fido has been here two seconds and he's referring to blow-jobs! You really can't take him anywhere! Catullus's lady-friend was probably a notorious bimbo called Clodia wasn't she? A bit of Catullus suited to the heated posts of the moment would probably be vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus don't you think? - 'let's live and love', otherwise a favourite phrase of Martin's 'life is short'! |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 05:17 am | | Karoline:- What follows is an horrendously long post and I apologise for it right now. It is intended for you and is intended to highlight the genesis of and the key points in the current debate. No one else need bother with it - assuming that anyone else is bothering anyway! - and it has been written at speed before the demands of the day begin so please allow me the opportunity to expand on any points before putting the boot in. It is really a sort of rough thinking guide.
The most obvious solution to the mystery of the origin of the 'diary' is that it was forged by Mike Barrett and Ann Graham and that they forged it for the purpose of financial gain. This is the belief held by many people, among them able individuals such as Peter Birchwood who has built upon it a structure of theorising which includes Feldy and Keith wittingly or unwittingly supplying Ann with her 'in my family for years' story - which she is supposed to have told after her break with Mike in order to obtain 25 per cent of the royalties due her. Such theories represent Ann as a scheming and manipulative individual who since 1992 has consistently lied and sought to benefit from the forgery and who has and who continues to deceive and abuse the trust and friendship of a wide range of people, among them Feldman, Keith, Shirley, Carol Emmas, and various peripherally associated individuals.
However, there are a number of elements which cause some doubts about whether or not the 'Mike and Ann did it for financial gain' theory actually stands up. In the first place, Mike has never given a coherent account of how the 'diary' was conceived and executed. It does not strike me as unreasonable to expect him to have been able to do so if he had been involved in the forgery. Even when he originally confessed, the journalist was unimpressed with Barratt's account, observing that Barratt could not even name the places where he acquired the book and the ink. When Mike did identify these places, inquiries failed to substantiate his claims. Overall, his knowledge about the most basic details of the forgery - whose idea it was, how they hit upon the idea, what discussions they had, what obstacles they thought they'd have to overcome, where they bought the materials - are so lamentably poor that one must question his active participation from the outset and perhaps even question whether he was at any time aware that it was a forgery.
Secondly, to the untrained eye the handwriting of the 'diary' matches neither that of Mike or Ann - this is not my judgement, but the judgement of others, including the staunch anti-'diarist' Peter Birchwood (who I mention here only to show that the claim is not simply made by a so-called pro-'diarists' like Feldy). A professional handwriting analyst might conclude differently, but on the basis of several unqualified assessments there is a case for suggesting that the 'diary' was not penned by either Mike or Ann. This does not mean that they were both uninvolved with the forgery, but it does mean that there is another person involved - who? - and raises assorted further questions such as what benefit did this other person derive from the forgery as his/her financial gain seems to have been nil.
These questions strike at the very foundation of the 'Mike and Ann did it for financial gain' hypothesis and must be addressed by those who support that theory and on it base their assessment of Ann's character and subsequent events. If it be agreed that there are ground for doubting the hypothesis then obviously an alternative must be sought.
I would also like to point out that this argument erupted from a discussion about whether or not there was any merit in discussing the type of liar Ann Graham is - whether she is a scheming, manipulative liar whose word simply cannot be trusted, or a woman who deceived her husband in an effort to save her marriage (Ann Graham's story told in 1994 is that she gave the 'diary' to Mike via Tony D. in an effort to save her shaky marriage) and whose lies were well-intentioned and whose word can thus be trusted as much as anyone else.
I came out of retirement from these Boards when somebody appeared to say that assessing the motive behind a lie was unimportant and that a lie was a lie was a lie. I strongly disagree with this simplistic view. I said that dismissing everything Ann said simply because she was a demonstrable liar was ridiculous and I pointed out that the 'I did it to save my marriage' story could be true regardless of whether Ann had forged the 'diary' herself or the 'diary' had been in her family for years. I also pointed out that the 'I did it to save my marriage' story accounted for Mike's ignorance, explained the incredibly lame 'bloke in the pub' cover story (Mike did get it from a bloke in the pub and the story wasn't intended to persuade anyone of anything), and accounted for the fights Mike and Ann claimed to have had when Mike wanted to publish the 'diary' itself (fights which seemed inexplicable if Ann's intention was to make money, but understandable if she didn't want her forgery made public or want her ailing father pestered to explain its origins).
The counter argument was that the 'I did it to save my marriage' story was thoroughly implausible and that the 'financial gain' motive was far and away most likely. I have asked whether or not this really is the case. The 'I did it to save my marriage' story has Ann forging the 'diary' for no reason other than to inspire Mike and keep him from drinking heavily. There would have been no anxiety about scientific tests, about expert analysis of the content, of creating a provenance, of having to persuade anybody of anything. All Ann had to do was create something that would inspire her husband.
This, apparently, is less likely than a couple who, as far as we know, have no experience whatsoever of forgery and no knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick conceiving the idea of forging a 'diary' in which Maybrick is the Ripper and selling this to a publisher for a lot of money. Apparently undaunted by their ignorance of forgery and the hundred and one hurdles they know nothing about but which common sense would tell them existed and which could immediately expose their creation as a fraud, they go ahead. They do minimum research, but have no idea whatever whether the information they are using is accurate or not. They make no attempt to match the handwriting to either Maybrick's or that of the 'Dear Boss' letter. And they create a provenance - 'I got it from a bloke down the pub' - that is so absurdly weak it's a joke. We also assume that nothing has alerted them to the fact that things like the Hitler diaries fiasco have made the dupes very wary and that the chances of coming face to face with Mr. Plod are disquietingly high. They therefore set out blithely content that their handiwork will persuade a publisher to part with oodles of dosh without undertaking even the most elementary tests.
This isn't ineptitude - ineptitude is the forger who made a copy of a Belgian coin that was absolutely perfect in every respect except that he had called it a 'frank' (the coin is in the Black Museum). This is optimism beyond ordinary comprehension. But the point is that it is supposed to be far more likely and probably than Ann forging a document that she hopes will inspire her husband and steer him from the drunken course he was taking.
Okay, Karoline, here you have it: the Mike and Ann forged the 'diary' to make money explanation makes more sense than any other, despite the fact that the very concept was dumb and the forgery poorly executed, despite the possibility that neither Mike nor Ann penned the document, and despite Mike's ignorance suggesting that he wasn't involved. Whereas the Ann forged it with her dad to save the marriage is wholly improbable.
And finally, I am not saying that I think the 'diary' is an old forgery, nor have I ever said this (I have said that people initially didn't allow such a possibility into their equations and I argued that they should do). What I am saying and have been saying almost since 1992 is who, why and when? Who are the forgers, why did they create the forgery and when did they create it? Thus far, I am unconvinced that Mike was involved in the forgery. In fact I strongly lean towards the conclusion that he wasn't and that he knew nothing about it. I think that Ann is a bright and intelligent woman who could have forged it alone, but I also think that as a bright and intelligent woman she would not have perceived forgery as the route to financial prosperity and that she would have been daunted by the potential problems. I appreciate that this is a personal value judgement, but I have met and talked with Ann many times and it is therefore a judgement I feel entitled to make and allow into my own equation. I therefore don't feel that Ann forging the 'diary' for financial gain makes much sense. I don't think forging it to save her marriage makes a whole lot of sense either, but frankly I find it the better alternative. However, pending expert opinion, the 'diary' handwriting doesn't look like Ann's, so if she's the forger that she presumably collaborated with someone else (Billy Graham and Tony Devereaux being prime candidates) or she wasn't party to the forgery at all. If she was duped along with Mike then her current story about having seen the 'diary' herself in the 60s was presumably created to protect the actual forger (Billy?) or - and this is the real toughy - the damn thing has indeed been in her family for years. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 05:28 am | | Keith:- straw-poll time.
Yes, you've outlined the Ann/Tony D. scenario pretty comprehensively, though the motive need not have been money but a joint concern about Mike's heavy-drinking and a desire to give him something to do.
But even if the purpose was financial gain, maybe Tony D. expected that Mike would do the honest thing and give him his cut, especially if Mike was urged to do so by Ann!
Tony's unexpected death simply eliminated that problem, though one of Mike's fears may well have been that Tony's family would claim a share of the money on the grounds that Tony had given the 'diary' to Mike. |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 06:26 am | | Martin - thank you for the compliment. We dinosaur stick-in-the-muds should stick together.
CMD
So you are somewhere between me and Paul Begg? Well you know what Woody Allen said about the right man and the right woman.
To get back to the diary.
I think I am having huge problems in explaining myself (only martin understands me). Caz is cross with me for mentioning Weedon Grossmith,
Keith seems to think i have some kind of personal vendetta against Ann G.
oh dear...
I'll try to make a better job of putting my thoughts (such as they are) across...
Firstly I really want to make it clear that i don't 'believe' anything.
I have no fixed opinions, and no axe to grind. I don't stand to make or lose any money; i'm not writing a book.
i'm just interested and curious, and enjoying the discussion.
Keith, do read my post again, and i'm sure you'll see that i don't claim your Ann DID forge the diary.
I don't know whether she did or not.
I am merely pointing out that a good case can be made for the PROBABILITY that she and her ex-husband forged it.
That's all.
I am perfectly prepared to believe it might not be true.
But I would like to be sure you are similarly open-minded.
Do you agree that, until we have firm evidence to think otherwise, we should assume that the most probable case is the most likely to be true?
And don't you agree that (objectively) the most probable case is that Ann and Mike forged the thing for a bit of cash - and didn't do too great a job?
You see, i just don't understand WHY you believe the old forgey idea is actually more probable, when on the face of it it looks almost absurdly improbable.
I respect that view - but I don't understand it.
I would genuinely like to hear your reasons, because i hope i have an open mind and am perfectly prepared to admit I may have overlooked important things.
So can I ask again of you, Paul, Caz or anyone -
why do you think the idea of these two people doing a botched modern forgery for a bit of cash and/or fame is LESS likely than the idea of an anonymous policeman in about 1920 doing the same forgery - and hiding it in a cupbard?
This is not a rhetorical question, or some silly game of words - it is a genuine plea for information.
Paul:
Thank you for your long post, and for taking the time over it for me.
I know you mean every word most sincerely. But you know, I can't help feeling there is a dichotomy (oh no! I hear you cry - not a dichotomy!).
You see - on the one hand, we have Caz and Keith and others saying that probability is not enough - that they need firm hard evidence of who forged the thing and when.
Which is fair enough.
But on the other, we have a rather bizarre and continuing failure of all concerned to ever get any of this hard evidence.
I have some small experience of historical detective work. I understand about the delays, the frustrations, believe me I do.
But to be honest I am almost dumdfounded by your admission that neither Ann's nor Mike's handwriting has yet been examined by a professional expert.
This is extraordinary, Paul, really it is.
Analysis of their handwriting is surely a very very basic first step towards discovering the proof that you and others talk about so much.
Yet, after all these years of talk aout the 'need for proof', none of you have managed to get this done.
Really, one has to wonder - if not this, then what?
What investigations HAVE been done?
Has anyone checked out Mike's past?
or Ann's?
Has anyone tried to discover who might have done this putative old forgery?
or when?
Or where?
Has anyone discovered who might have had access to that all-important inventory before it was published?
have these things or other things been done?
has _anything_ concrete been done?
Forgive me a little impatience of tone - but these boards are crammed with speculations by you and Caz and Keith - about who actually physically wrote the diary - and all of these speculations are based on the assumption that it can't have been Mike or Ann.
And yet, now it appears that none of you have taken one step toward actually discovering if this is even true.
It's a little rich isn't it, for anyone to be asking Peter B. to prove his theory that Ann or Mike wrote the diary - when none of you have taken any such steps to prove anything yourselves?
I'm afraid this comes across as shoddy.
And I would suggest everyone concerned in the investigation refrain from further unwarranted speculation about who might have written the damn thing - until you have a least some basic data to work with.
This, believe me, is said without rancour.
I don't know who wrote the thing.
For all i know, it may have been a mad policeman in 1920; it may even have been James Maybrick himself.
But I DO know poor methodology when I see it.
And, guys, this looks a lot like poor methodology to me.
But I still fancy you like mad Paul
Karoline |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 07:38 am | | When I used that little quote of Latin , I didn't expect that people would take things so far ! Blimey !
Actually , I AM a fluent French speaker from my days in the Loire valley , so if anyone wants to post in French please feel free. Au revoir mes enfants !
Simon. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 09:15 am | | Karoline:- I cannot agree more that both Mike and Ann's handwriting should have been professionally compared against the 'diary'. However, may I just say that I am not speculating that the 'diary' can't have been written by Mike or Ann. What I am doing is objecting to those who say that it was, who say that they did it for financial gain and who build upon it grand edifices of speculation about Ann Graham's character and personality.
And frankly, Karoline, irrespective of what should or should not have been done in the past, I think there is a greater burden on those who claim that Mike and Ann wrote the 'diary' when they know that their handwriting does not look like the 'diarist's', than there is upon those who know the handwriting doesn't look like Mike and Anne's and who say they therefore probably didn't write it.
And I wasn't asking Peter Birchwood to prove his theory. I was asking him to test it within the framework of the evidence we currently possess, which is something he can do. And also, to be fair, if he thinks that Mike/Ann wrote the 'diary' despite the fact that to his and other untrained eyes the 'diary' handwriting doesn't look like theirs, all he has to do is pay for a professional handwriting analysis. He's the one making the claim, his is the responsibility to prove it, just as it was Feldy's responsibility to prove his claim that Maybrick wrote the 'diary', not the responsibility of others to prove he didn't. I rather thought we'd all decided that the one making the claim had to prove it!
"But I still fancy you like mad Paul" - well, I'd better kick old CMD out from between us then! |
|
|
|
|
