|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 23, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Handwriting:
Archive through November 23, 1998
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 05:39 am |        | An earlier posting I mentioned giving ten reasons why the "Diary" is a forgery and D Cairns replied on Monday, November 16, 1998 - 11:16 am:
1 The Handwriting.
2. The Handwriting.
3. The handwriting.
4. The handwriting.
5. The handwriting.
6. The handwriting.
7. The handwriting.
8. The handwriting.
9 The handwriting.
10. The handwriting.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
I happen to agree that the handwriting is strong evidence that the "Diary" isn't genuine, but I wonder how reliable handwriting evidence is. Two experts were consulted about the Hitler Diairies and both declared them genuine. I know that there were peculiarities, but as Robert Harris wrote in Selling Hitler (p/back pg.197): "But even after allowance has been made for all these factors, it has to be said that the success of Konrad Kujau's forgeries casts serious doubts on the 'science' of handwriting analysis..." He went on to observe that "In 1971, when Clifford Irving faked his notorious 'autobiography' of Howard Hughes, 'one holographer' gave odds of a million to one against the possibility that it could be anything but genuine. The reputable New York firm of Osborn, Osborn and Osborn, specialists in handwriting analysis since 1905, declared that it would have been 'beyond human ability' to have forged the entire autobiography.'
I reiterate that while not dismissing the handwriting testimony in any way, I do question whether we can rely on it 100%. In so doing, are we not in fact doing the same as McGraw-Hill and Stern, except that whilst they accepted handwriting evidence that their respective documents were genuine,we are doing it in reverse, namely accepting the handwriting evidence that the "Diary" is a forgery? |
Author: Scott Knudsen
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 07:21 am | | Hi Paul,
If we were attempting to explain away differences between two handwriiting samples (Maybricks will and the diary for instance) this would be a persuasive point. However, since the diarist claims credit for the "JTR" letters, we have in this case a total of three distinct handwriting styles, none of which can be reconciled with any of the others.
FOr the sake of any novices reading this, I'd like to add that even this by itself would not be enough to dismiss the diary. By itself. However, the handwriting, plus the lack of provenance, plus the anachronisims, plus the inconsistancies with Maybricks life, plus the crime scene discrepancies...each addition makes the diaries truth increasingly unlikely. In my opinion the final figure is 100% fake.
Regards,
Scott |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 09:48 am | | As novice I have spent a lot of time reading Pro-Contra diary (Harrison et.al) and must say that when I read the stuff from e.g. H and S and co., such cheap tricks seem to become apparent that I do begin to feel very strongly that the whole diary is indeed a swindle.
Even though I have read pages of hysterical for/against even just the handwriting and tend, as novices do, to believe or at least to entertain the last view read, I find that many of the pro-diary answers given are at best such f... nonsense that I feel forced to ask if anyone knows if 'esoeteric' forces are at work here as well as financial ones?
I work in research (Physics) and in this branch, as certainly in all others, I come into contact with astro-brained pseudo-scientists and their moronic, brazen-mouthed mentors and supporters more often than I like.
The lying, surreptitious, creeping odour from this pack stinks just like the rubbish that I was dumb enough to spend my time on with the Maybrick diary and most of the surrounding literature.
Almost everything that one touches with this diary (be it ink, paper, time-gate, date, fantasy or historical factand not only the hand-writing), the excuses that one hears as answers concerning real factual questions on it are, pardon me, mostly utter nonsense farted about by apparent complete idiots.
Sorry to those who honestly believe in the diary and try to give reasoned, based answers. Your points and views are welcome to me and if you can lead me to believe otherwise, please do so. I am not the Pillar of Wisdom and will be very pleased to hear any REASONABLE points to e.g. explain the differences in the handscripts Will/ Marriage Cert and the damn diary.
Unfortunantly you people do seem to be in the minority.
e-mail me if you like.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 10:06 am | | | Who is 'H and S and co'? What 'cheap tricks' are you talking about? |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 04:21 am | | Hello Paul.
I was just about write tons of 'who is' and 'cheap tricks', having really done (even as novice) a lot of study in this direction, but on reflection most of what I would write is already been written (i.e Harris, Scheip) who are not the H, S in my last boarding or Harrison, Smith who are.
Please note that I havn't for example written 'cheap tricks' but 'cheap tricks seem to be apparent', allowing for my own failings as beginner in this interest.
At the moment I am investigating (as time allows) ink from the back of old photographs dated 1906, 1911 and 1915 using high resolution N2 laser flourescence spectrography to determine ( to try to determine ) the composition of old inks compared to new non-dye types. The object is to test if results reported re. Maybrick Will/'supposed' Diary could be realistic.
Reason: I cannot carry out every test on every material I have read about to determine if what has been written is also the truth. Time alone forbids it. Therefore I take two vital opposing expertise and try in each case to prove their opposites. (or not).
I'll add results according to the interests of others to the board as I get them (or not).
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 04:28 am | | Sorry , Slip of the fingers, Mr Scheib, not Scheip.
Bob |
Author: Lisby
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 01:19 pm | | Just a comment on the unreliability of handwriting analysis: I am a journalist who works for a respected American law enforcement/security magazine. Last year, staff here, including myself, submitted a threat letter and handwriting samples to a very respected handwriting analyst who frequently testifies in big name courtcases and is widely thought to be an top expert in the field.
I was the writter of the threat letter. I am able to write with both hands, so I wrote the letter with my right hand and purposefully tried to disguise my writing (not very cleverly, I might add.) The handwriting sample that I submitted for comparison I wrote with my left hand in my normal script. The expert could not determine which of us had written the threat letter. She was completely at a loss and very embarrassed when I told her what I had done.
It is possible--just *possible*--that our ripper was duel-handed as I am, and cetainly my recent experience shows that a duel-handed person has enough significant differences between their left and right-handed script to fool a respected expert.
This is not meant to prove anything about the Maybrick diary and the Ripper letters-- it's just food for thought.
Lisby |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 02:02 pm | | One thing that I do agree with Paul (Begg) about is the fundamental unreliability of handwriting analysis especially when undertaken by "graphologists." Even when Forensic Document examiners give opinions about handwriting, they show a lamentable habit of agreeing with whoever is paying them. Therefore, the best that I can say is that having looked at the handwriting of Mike and Anne, although there are some similarities to the diarist there are also differences. I don't think that anyone could say much more than that. You can also say that the diarists hand doesn't look like Victorian handwriting and looks much more modern.
Proving the diary a forgery relies on several items, not just handwriting. Equally if you were trying to prove the diary genuine or "an old forgery" whatever that might mean, the handwriting would not help you. There is though one point that might be important: the diarist's spelling. I'd direct your attention to that point because it is strangely significant.
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 05:55 am | | Peter,
You ask what 'old forgey' means. Essentially, it means a forgery created prior to 1987. Or a forgery created by persons or persons unknown (that is, not Mike and Anne or anyone linked to them).
Research into the "Diary" polarised into two extremes, those who thought the "Diary" was genuine and those who believed it was a 'modern forgery', by which was meant a forgery created in or after 1987. Nobody seemed to consider the possibility that the "Diary" was forged between 1889 and 1987. Those dates therefore provide a rough rule of thumb for the definition of 'old forgery'.
The suggestion of an old forgery was advanced at a time when it didn't look as if either Mike and Ann Barrett were responsible for forging the document and no 'Mr Big the Forger' was discernable in the background (and remember that Scotland Yard had questioned many of the people involved at that time and had not detected a 'Mr Big' either - which is why Melvin Harris's claim to be able to name the threeforgers is so important; he presumably discovered something that Scotland Yard didn't!). So, postulating that none of the known players were responsible for the forgery (and didn't know it was a forgery), the forgery had to have been done by somebody else, somebody who as far as anyone could tell was gaining nothing from the hoax - at least nothing financial - and who, for that reason, was possibly dead. Thus, the "Diary" was an 'old forgery', presumably never used for the purpose for which it was created.
The 'old forgery' idea was worth considering, especially as it focused the questioning (such as causing us to ask: 'with what period is the handwriting consistent?', which would have provided a rough idea when the document was composed, instead of 'is this a Victorian hand?'which didn't). Perhaps it is still worth considering for that reason alone. And, of course, if Ann Graham and her father are telling the truth, then the "Diary" is and old forgery.
As far as the spelling is concerned, I agree. As we say in the A to Z, 'Martin Fido observed at least 20 anachronistic, solecistic or mis-spelled words and phrases, incompatible with Maybrick's time and class, and not easily explicable as slips of the pen' - stuff like 'of people who constantly enquire regards...' and 'and take the unfaithfull bitch'.
How do you see it as significant, Peter? |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:20 am | | And thank you for that imput, Lisby, which adds yet another question mark over the reliability of the handwriting analysis, especially pertinent, I thought, as we have three handwriting 'styles' - a formal, legal document (the Will), documents which some people might reasonably assume to have been written with a disguised handwriting (the 'Ripper' letters), and a document written in a 'natural' hand possibly under stress - and remember that these conditions possibly did apply no matter who wrote those respective documents (The Sunday Times took the "Diary" to a document examiner named Audrey Giles who, while noting differences between the Will and the diary,'agreed that the diary writings vaied cinsiderably in style from small and neat to large, scrawled and apparently agitated'.)
So, if a question mark hangs over the accuracy of handwriting analysis - and if handwriting analysis is most reliable when the documents being compared were written under similar physical and emotional conditions and within a similar time period - how much certainty can by placed on the analysis of three documents produced under wildly different circumstances?
I wish we had a good handwriting analyst contributing to this board! |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 07:15 am | | Paul:
Thanks for your definition of "old forgery" which I am happy to accept in its first part but not necesarily in its second. After all, if the diary was in the hands of the Graham family, you can't rule out that it might have been written by one of them or someone connected to them. (Alice Yapp, Elizabeth Formby?)
Left with that definition you still have to come up with a theory as to why the connection was made between JtR and Maybrick by some individual during that period. The two cases weren't publicly linked until 1992. A more "sensible" linking which as you know was a near-contemporary one was with Mrs. Pearcy not Maybrick.
And have you any idea what sort of purpose the diary could have been created for? (Bad Grammar, sorry.) If we are agreed that the handwriting is not Victorian the where does it fit? Having had some experience in records from 1800 to date I believe it to be a modern hand but what do you think? As I've said, I think that handwriting experts be they graphologists or FDE's are equally unreliable unless they come up with the result that their clients want. I there for think that although the handwriting may give us a clue it's not definitive. The answer lies somewhere else. And please, for the sake of your fans out there tell them what you truly believe about the diary!
Regards, Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 08:43 am | | Hi Peter
What I truly believe about the "Diary"? I've now stated a lot of times that I think the "Diary" is a forgery. I have said this publicly, on the Casebook, and even in my introduction to Paul Feldman's book ('I was still of the opinion that the 'Diary was a forgery' (h/back pg.xiii, for example).
I wasn't ruling out the possibility that it was forged by a member of the family. I'm simply advancing the postulate that neither Mike, Ann, Billy or Tony D. knew the "Diary" was a forgery.
As for why it would have been forged, I haven't the faintest idea, except that I think it was obviously forged for the purpose of making somebody think it had been written by James Maybrick. I assume, therefore, that it was forged so that somebody could either sell it or use it as the basis for some articles or a book.
In relation to the old forgery/modern forgery issue, one question which has not been given a lot of serious thought is the amount of effort that has gone into creating the forgery - paper, ink, handwriting, psychopathology, and so on and so on.
The point is that other forgeries, like the Hitler diairies, had an enormous historical significance. Jack the Ripper's diaries don't. Unless the Ripper turned out to be a VIP then the diairies would resolve a mystery and perhaps reveal the motive, but nothing more. The historical significance would be nil. And given that prior to 1988 the "Ripper-game" was played without real regard for the historical facts (no Ripperana, no Ripperologist, no A to Z, no Casebook) who would have anticipated that the "Diary" would be subjected to any kind of serious tests? I emphasise this because on the basis of what has happened in the past no forger need have expected that this document would be subjected to scientific analysis. The Ripper and the Royals, which asserted that the Duke of Clarence did not die, but was kept prisoner at Glamis castle while his brother usurped the throne!, was published without either author or publisher ever seeing the Abberline diaries on which the assertion was based, let alone subjecting them to scientific analysis. My point is that a forger need not have expected the Journal to be subjected to any tests. Why, then, go to much effort to make it convincing. Just do your best to make the handwriting look like the "Dear Boss" letter and away you go. A book and you have the money for a greenhouse.
Of course, if you actually used an ink that looked Victorian because that was the sort of ink sold everywhere anyway and used an old book because it wasn't all that old when you wrote and was a ledger your Dad had, and if you didn't really have to do anything about the handwriting because the "Dear Boss" handwriting wasn't plastered over a dozen Ripper books in any bookshop... i.e., if you were writing in the 20s or 30s...
Just a thought. Now it's time for Sunday lunch. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:12 am | | Hi Paul!
Hope I didn't spoil your lunch!
I'm afraid I don't quite see your point here. I agree that quite a lot of care seems to have been taken in the "forging" of the so-called diary, and that those who dismissed it as an "amateurish fake" spoke incautiously. But surely your point about the scrutiny to which this document has been subjected could just as easily lead us to the conclusion that the diary is a modern fake (in your own terms - ie post-1987), precisely because a modern hoaxer WOULD expect their work to be investigated carefully, and would therefore be required to take care such care to make the document APPEAR old. As you imply, (deliberately or otherwise), someone writing in the 20s or 30s could afford to adopt a more slipshod approach to the task. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:45 am | | A hypothesis.
Maybrick was an unstable, possibly dangerous individual (foremost to his spouse and family, regardless of any tender sentiments in a "diary" notation). Maybrick may have made statements and written documents that basically contain the contents of what we now call the "Diary." Since Mrs. Maybrick seemed the focus of Maybrick's animus, she may have felt it wise to write down his verbal ramblings and/or copy his private papers. Her motive is self-protection; "evidence' for the police in case she needs to take some pre-emptive action -- such as commitment to an institution. Maybrick dies. Mrs. Maybrick is accused of his murder and comes to trial. She produces her "evidence" to her counsel. Her counsel may have considered a plea of "Self-Defense" when Mrs. Maybrick produced what she wrote and kept hidden in a photo album (not a normal place one would look to find a "diary"). When counsel hears that Mrs. Maybrick wrote the diary, they point out since it was in HER handwriting, anyone could conclude the "diary" is her forgery; worthless as a defense, maybe even dangerous to her case. Get rid of it, they advise. Prosecution's case for an especially vicious premeditation (that is, "setting up" Maybrick through pseudo-writings) would be bolstered by this suspicious "evidence." Mrs. Maybrick heeds the advice. The "diary" falls into apparent oblivion. The possibility exists that someone else may have compounded the so-called forgery by copying the "diary" for their own purposes: to use against Mrs. Maybrick; for a misguided attempt at "solving" the Ripper case. Any way you look at it, the hypothetical "old forgers" realized there was nothing to be gained by bringing this "diary" to light. By the late 20th century, the opinions of the people holding the "diary" radically differed from their predecessors; none of the old dangerous suppositions are in effect, even considered. Thus, they proffered the "diary" to the world.
And handwriting analysis is not an exact science; few claim it to be. Why it is admissable in some courts when lie detection evidence is not remains an Arthur C. Clarke "Mystery of the Universe" episode waiting to be made. |
Author: stanoje
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 11:31 am | | re. Anonymous' hypothesis
Dear sir or madam:
Unless you are a screenwriter you have missed your calling.A few more drafts and you have a winner.All you need is an agent and a name.Fame and fortune await you.I can't think of a more appropriate place to post fiction than in the diary (sic) section.
One tiny suggestion;do you think that you could include the Kaiserin's entourage (British branch),Druitt,the masonic conspiracy and an evil bunny? An Oscar may be within your reach. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 12:29 pm | | Paul:
Hope the lunch was good. We spent the afternoon checking a local hotel for my birthday dinner on Wednesday. (53rd although I'm deducting the years spent on dialysis so really 49th!)
I read your Intro where you opine that it's a forgery but I get the impression that you hadn't at that time decided between old or modern. Either is possible: I think it's modern but I could be wrong. As to Keith it seems that at one time he believed it to be old. Shirley and Feldy presumably consider it genuine. Does that seem accurate?
As to your postulate, I suggest it's unsafe.
Looking at the Maybrick case it seems that a lot of attention was focused on Florie at the time and not that much on James: as usual the victim isn't as interesting as the accused. Now whether Florie done it or whether she was innocent (and I'm always suspicious of ladies like Miss Smith who hoard collections of flypaper) it looks as though once the trial was over James was forgotten about for a century. If the diary's old then the author put together two completely disparate cases and made a villain out of a relatively innofensive cotton merchant. And I say "Innofensive" because most of what has been written in the Casebook accusing Maybrick of violent debauched drug-crazed behaviour is a product of people getting their information from the diary rather than from court records and the earlier books. Granted Maybrick ingested arsenic and other items. So did many victorians not all of whom became depraved serial murderers. To emphasise this point several posters on this site have "proved" that Maybrick was the ripper just by reading the diary.
As to the amount of effort that went into creating the forgery I think too much has been made of this. The album can't have been too difficult to get hold of: there really are plenty of them about. Whether the ink was home-made, bought from a Liverpool art store or reconstituted from genuine Victorian powdered ink, that also was not a great problem. We've discussed handwriting, the research could have been done through the wealth of information available after 1988 and as for the psychopathology all that was needed was the reading of some crime/horror novels to get the right atmosphere. A good percentage of the persons involved in the Casebook could have written the diary without going outside their own bookshelves. And no; this doesn't mean that you had to be an expert to write the thing.
Now if the forger wrote before, say the 1960's he/she might well not have expected there to be any tests. After all, there was that French academic who collected letters written by great men including Newton, Shakespeare, St. Paul and Jesus Christ without wondering why they were all written in French! The fact that there is an attempt to provide forensic/literary proof therefore mitigates against an old forgery.
Of course if you were writing in the 20's/30's then you might have the tools to hand but you wouldn't have some of the post-1980 information, you wouldn't pick Maybrick because you probably hadn't heard of him, you wouldn't use a late-Victorian album (at that time 50-odd years old) because you wouldn't be expecting it to be tested and you wouldn't write it in the first place because it doesn't read like a novel any you'd have no other reason.
I shall now adjourn for the Antiques Road Show. And if the experts come up with a late vistorian album...?
Peter.
Avala: who or what is the Kaiserin? The thing with the Masonic conspiracy is that it's a branch of the Illuminati conspiracy and indeed is everywhere. Stephen Knight mentioned the Protocols so maybe anonymous could work them in. |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 01:32 pm | | I do not believe James Maybrick is Jack the Ripper. I do not know if the "Diary" is genuine...and, in the convoluted context of who and when a forgery was commited, "genuine" takes on more than the meaning that Maybrick wrote it, or it comes indirectly from him. My postulation was only on how the hoax may have started farther back than 1989.
I would also caution that textual criticism is not an exact science any more than handwriting analysis; perhaps even less so. If someone read Sterne or Christopher Smart, they would be a bit pressed to place them in their rightful era. We have yet to catch up with Mr. James Joyce! No, my point is not that the "diary" contains any genious, let alone the genious of the cited authors, just that innovation, even from an inept writer, is not strictly impossible.
A further caution if the "diary" has been copied at least once, that copying should not imply complete, accurate reproduction. Even careful transcription introduces errors. "Copying" is less rigourous and may betray when the "copy" was made without, on the mere fact it is a copy, conclusively prove there was no "legitimate" original. Copying would also serve as an alternative to a post-1989 forgery as non-literal copying captures the usages and idioms of the copyist's time period as they paraphrase the "original" or source document.
The point about Maybrick's attitudes towards his wife, I do not know anything about that. Peter Birchwood may be absolutely correct.
Again, I do not believe in this "Diary" or Maybrick as the murderer. I simply refuse to impune anyone's integrity, honesty, intellectual rigour. Let science prove the "Diary" for what it is...or, better perhaps, what it is not. But please be fair; and do try not to let personalities and personal attacks sully a debate needlessly. Nothing is added by engaging in this type of behaviour or tactic.
Thank you. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 04:28 pm | | Hi
I wasn't actually suggesting that a pre-1960s forger might not have expected any tests, although it is true that he might not have done, but rather that a forger in the 1990s might not have expected any tests either. The Ripper and the Royalsby Melvyn Fairclough was published in hardback in 1991 and in paperback in 1992 - roughly about the same time as some people think the "Diary" was being forged! - and many of the claims therein were based on a supposed diary by Abberline. The book was written and published with hardly anyone seeing the diary and without it being subjected to any tests whatsoever (except a handwriting comparison by Melvyn). The book sold well and continues to sell.
I submit for consideration that if anyone had studied the Ripper market in the early 1990s they would have had no reason to expect a forged Ripper diary to be subjected to tests. They would think that a publisher would grasp a saleable commodity, get someone on their books to write it up, and get it on the bookshop shelves next to books about ghosts, flying saucers and anything else where the criteria for publication is sensationalism. That, anyway, was the idea I was advancing for discussion.
As for a 1930s date for composition, you might not have all the post-1980 information, but what information wouldn't you have? You might pick Maybrick - something triggered the idea whenever the "Diary" was composed, maybe the "Diary" author had his imagination pricked by the publication of Nott-Bower's memoirs in 1926 or the publicatin on 17 August 1889 of the cartoon "Whitechapel and Whitehall" which features Hanry Matthews seated at his deak, Jack the Ripper on his left brandishing a knife and a document stating 'Hang the Wanton! Murder her!' and on his right the blindfolded figure of Justice holding out a petition entited "Free Pardon". The caption reads: "Attempted Murder of Florence MAybrick.- Save Her Mr Matthews.' The cartoon is a direct connection between the Ripper and Maybrick. And I'm not suggesting that a late-Victorian album was chosen because tests were expected, but simply because it was easily available and looked the right period.
But, as said, my main point was that allowing an old forgery into one's considerations focuses the questions. |
Author: Honesty First
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 05:34 pm | | REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT
|
Author: YAZOO
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:08 pm | | "Honesty First," my ass! The tone and nature of these remarks are uncalled for. The only pest is the post-er. The only way to end this tripe and nonsense is to ignore it. Please don't dignify this crap with an answer, Mr. Begg.
Paul Begg is a respected name in this field, little lord Honesty First! Does that bother you? Are you jealous? Oh, don't be. Don't be at all. Just go away and don't come back! You slanderous little villain.
I can't believe ANYONE would so disrespect ALL OF US to post this garbage!
Angrily yours,
YAZOO (if you wanna come lookin' for somebody, little lord Honesty)
Oh! And any further post you make, little lord, I'm gonna ignore that too. You waste of time! |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:48 pm | | Excuse my language in the previous post. I was and still am angry. I may be new to this field but, as I look at the names of contributors here, the only recognizable, respected name I see time and again is Paul Begg. He has offered us his time, his knowledge, his help, and -- yes -- his correction. I do not want to see him hounded from this place because of spiteful, petty, personalized attacks. This is a place where Paul Begg and hopefully others of his stature feel at home. WE owe it them them, to him in this case, to ensure that this home remains honest, fair, friendly, gracious, humble. If WE do not stand up for people like Paul Begg, why would they ever bother to come? They'd lose nothing by leaving us; we'd lose very, very much indeed. Please resist this urge to make personal attacks against ANYONE...stop yourselves and resist this bizzare behavior in others.
You don't have to agree with Paul Begg...or with each other, for that matter. But you must respect each other. We should ALL insist on that modicum of behavior.
Again, my apologies for language abuse.
Yaz |
Author: Honesty First
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 07:09 pm | | | What lanquage! I didn't want to know what orifice you speak out of anyway Yazoo. |
Author: Stephanie Loyd
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 07:47 pm | | Ladies and gentlemen,
I have read a great deal of discussion about the handwriting, particularly noting it's laxities. I am not a handwriting expert, but I suspect that the examples that you show are not entirely fair.
Let's use, for example, a comparison with eye-witness identification, which is also allowable in court (and is, in fact, generally regarded the most important thing to have). Which is more likely to happen: incorrectly identifying someone as a murderer or incorrectly categorically denying one is the murderer (ignoring the possibility that that would happen out of fear--not applicable here)?
What I'm saying is that I think that, if a suspect were brought in and the witness said: "No way that's him," it would take a mountain of evidence to bring that individual to trial. I think, if the individual WERE the killer, the witness would most likely, at worst, say "I don't know."
However, any number of times, people have wrongly fingered the wrong person in the line-up, for any number of honest reasons (and possibly a few not-so-honest). That doesn't mean that every witness identification is faulty, just that it isn't an exact proof.
What does that have to do the handwriting? Every example of handwriting failure (and I find the number surprisingly small considering how often this has been used), is one of a mistaken connection: saying the handwriting was genuine when it wasn't. I find this very analogous to the false positive ID.
However, it is not the same thing as saying that the handwriting positively ISN'T genuine. That is more like the eye witness saying "Nope, definitely not him." I suspect, among witnesses, that those that were false "anti-IDs" were very much in the minority and I would be surprised if that weren't also the case with handwriting analysis.
I just don't want us to get so caught up in these really rare cases of handwriting analysis gone wrong that we brand it unfairly. Eyewitness accounts belong in a courtroom. So do handwriting analyses. Polygraph, were any number of factors can produce a "false positive" and truly cold-blooded villains can come through unscathed, are probably correctly excluded. Ask yourself, is it more likely that someone be correct when they are sure there is a difference than when they think they can see a similarity?
Stephanie "another two cents" Loyd |
Author: stanoje
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 11:42 pm | | Dear Honesty:
Or is First your last name?I have no idea what prompted your bile
against Paul Begg or why you chose to post it under an alias.
By saying that he has not given up you reveal that you have been closely following his postings from your benighted lair.
I personally have never spoken to,met or corresponded with Mr.Begg except for an item (nonrelated to this case)I circulated amongst some of the correspondents to these boards.
It is in reading these very boards that I have found Mr. Begg's answers to be invariably courteous,factual and to the point.
You say you are bothered by his interest in the diary.Guilt by association Mr.First? Pray tell why should he not pursue HIS
interests and not yours. If Mr. Begg is fooling us and realizing
great riches do you think it makes a damn bit of difference what he does here.People posting on these boards are pretty hard core,pro or anti diary.Anyone's opinion,no matter how lucid or persuasive,won't matter.Then you must be saying that Mr. Begg is out there peddling the diary to the unwary whilst acknowledging it to be a fake.Somewhat of a paradox Mr.Truth?
If you really have something constructive or critical to say please do it in the light of day. If you are truly Honesty then your identity
will not sully you.Be a human and come out.Don't hide under a
villain's cloak of deception and innuendo. |
Author: Honesty First
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 01:48 am | | Dear stanoje,
Is Yazoo not an alias also?
You comment on that which you understand not.
Suffice to say the truth sometimes hurts. |
Author: stanoje
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:02 am | | Dear Honesty Last:
Your posting regarding Yazoo is par for someone who prefers to lurk in the shadows.
While Yazoo is easily reachable by e-mail,you are not.
Once again you remain hoisted on you own petard! |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 04:14 am | | I don't have a clue if the diary is 'real', unreal or otherwise a load of bunkum. I do know that Mr P Begg, like most of the people on the board, is a gentleman who discusses things politely and correctly. Anyone who writes like Mr First or what he is called is behaving a bit like a yob screaming outside people's bedroom windows at three in the morning.
I have started to really investigate the diary and am suprised, even astonished, at the vicious reactions sometimes connected with this side of things. (I've received a couple of e-mails that have been apparently sent by little back-street hoodlums, hanging around with a knife in the hand and thinking the world is afraid of them).
Can anyone think of a reason? Or is the reason plain to see.
Bob_Court
Emden Germany |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 04:22 am | | Hi Stephen.
I've tried to contact you via e-mail because my e-mail link on the board doesn't seem to work although I've done everthing that I think should be done. No luck both ways. (My browser reports your URL is not available)
Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 06:48 am | | Hi Yaz
Thanks to you are everyone else who jumped to my defence and, far more importantly, supported good manners, politeness, and the right to discuss whatever aspect of the Ripper case that interests us.
I won't dignify HF's comments, Yaz, since they clearly reveal somebody who has read little, understood less, and can't even quote his sources correctly: Phillip Sugden did not call me a fly in amber, but states that quotes by myself and others used in promotional literature (for Paul Feldman's video) "remain there, preserved like flies in amber, warnings to the complacent and credulous." (Sugden. pg.11).
I have now explained a great many times why I am interested in the "Diary" and why that interest is not a defence, but HF presumably hasn't understod them, if he's even read them, because he still thinks it raises 'some interesting questions...' I was never 'blinded by the spinning pounds sterling signs' and I'd ask for the evidence HF has to support his accusation, but like so many critics of his sort he hasn't got any (I know, because the accusation is wholly untrue). The idea of my having created the 'old forgery' idea - which Martin Fido reminds me I advanced back in January 1993 - as a fallback is just plain stupid. And the idea that my colleagues and I backed the "Diary" is just another example of HF's ignorance. We all agreed it was a forgery, I mooted the possiblity that it was an old one, Keith gradually moved from modern to old forgery and Martin has vehemently maintained from the outset that it is a modern forgery. As for it being 'obvious' that Mike Barrett is telling the truth, the facts are that he could not provide basic information to support his original confession, the place where he claims to have bought the "Diary" deny that he could have done so, what little other evidence he's poduced, such as the error he claims is hidden by an ink blot, has been shown incorrect, he is a proven confabulator... This makes the truth of his confession 'obvious'? The handwriting arguments are sensible. I don't have to preserve my reputation... But why go on?
I'm afraid that this board has encountered the likes of HF before - or maybe it is HF we've encountered all the time, hiding behind a pseudonym and false e-mail address. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 07:07 am | | Stephanie - Your point is an excellent one. It was at the back of my mind when I wondered if we were reversing with the "Diary" what Stern did with the Hitler diaires, namely accepting that the "Diary" was a forgery while Stern accepted that Hitler diaries were genuine. However, I weighed that possibility against:
(a) the (admitted) assumption that the courts generally call upon handwriting experts to determine the authenticity of a signature and rarely require them to authenticate a large document such as the "Maybrick Diary", the Howard Hughes autobiography, or the Hitler Diaries. I therefore thought that with major documents like these the number of 'handwriting failures' many not have been small at all.
b) Given the number of examples of handwriting analysts getting it wrong in extremely high profile cases where they might have been expected to exercise the greatest caution (and, of course, they may have acceptable arguments in mitigation of which I am entirely unaware), it did occur to me that in consequence they might have learned one lesson, namely not to commit themselves to a positive judgement without the strongest evidence.
(c) Given the number of times they have got it wrong about 'historical' documents, I wondered if this type of document presented special problems which with the "Diary" may have been exacerbated by the type of documents being compared differing so greatly.
All in all, I think there was and possibly still is sufficient reason for requiring clarification about the issues pertinant to the handwriting analysis and that caution would be the prudent approach. This said, we should not overlook the fact that no fewer than three handwriting experts (excluding graphologists) have viewed the "Diary", Sue Iremonger for Shirley Harrison, Maureen Casey Owens for Kenneth Rendell/Time Warner, and Audrey Giles for The Times, and each has concluded that the "Diary" was not written by James Maybrick. The handwriting evidence is therefore highly persuasive.
Bt what a pity these three experts weren't asked to say when they thought the "Diary" had been written. |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 08:27 am | | Hello Paul,
Such possibilities as HF being a subversive 'sleeper' are good. I have had a lot of experience with other discussion groups and know that. If he is, however, he's blown his cover and good riddance.
The diary. I have read Melvin Harris's 'Casebook. Facts please, not Fallacies' as well as other sources a large number of times because, please don't take it bad, Melvin, if you are wrong, you've made a mighty fine job of getting it wrong.
If what Melvin writes is true, then the diary is a hoax and is proved to be a hoax. It doesn't then matter very much where, when or by whom it is written.
Such points as that it is written in a scrapbook, the regular writing over a number of days in a row and a large number of other points from Sue Ironmonger, Maureen Casey Owens and other established Factotum, plus Warner Books/Time refusal to publish and.. and.. and..
My point is that you, Paul, also clearly state that you believe the diary to be a fake. I wanted to make a thorough investigation (ink, paper etc.) but it does seem that the evidence against James as author and thus as Jack is so great, I ask if it makes any real sense for me, anyway, to investigate further?
Discussion sure, but I am going home (London) for christmas after nearly 20 years abroad and will, I hope, have enough time to search for other points that interest me about Jack. The diary, if it is a farce, does not interest me further.
Bob |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 09:11 am | | Hi Bob
I fully understand those for whom the "Diary" ceases to have any relevance or interest once they accept that it is a forgery. Indeed, I fully understand those who, like my colleague Martin Fido, have no interest in the "Diary" until its provenance is established. However, I do have an interest in the "Diary" because I'd like to know who forged it. As I have said before on this board, I'd like to know how accurate the various assessments were, what 'experts' got right, what they didn't get right, why they didn't get it right, and so on. For me, this is all part of the growth and dissemination of the 'legend'. So, I want to know the story behind the "Diary", just like I want to know the story behind Matters' Dr Stanley or Dutton's diaries and why the name of the pub in Berner Street is irritating the hell out of me.
When do you hit London? Not in time for the next Cloak and Dagger on the 5th December I'll wager. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 09:23 am | | Hi, all:
A bit of light relief after the pro- and anti-Begg barrage. Let me add that I admire Paul for coming back to these boards and offering his always informative and insightful messages. Despite the constant bruising that he gets, he is still gets back up and remains a gentleman.
What I can't understand is why Paul Begg comes in for the constant criticism in regard to the diary, when everyone knows the "MF" on Mary Jane Kelly's wall stand not for Paul Begg but Martin Fido. :-)
Chris George |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 10:16 am | | Hi Paul,
I don't know anything about the 'Cloak and Dagger' you write about, but would be interested in information on what it's about. I haven't been home for many years, although I'm only about 1 1/2 hrs. from London by air. If it's worth it, I'll make the trip for two, three days just to see.
Bob |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 11:20 am | | Paul:
Regarding your 22/11 posting I'm reacting briefly and without having read any other postings to your comment about the St. Stephens Review cartoon. Now the copy in Feldy's book has the female figure on Matthews left and the male on his right but that's just a detail. I really can't let you get away with the idea that the male figur is JtR. Given the paper he is holding and the title of the cartoon he's obviously just a personification of what the Press considered was the coming judicial murder of Florie.
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 11:37 am | | Hi Peter
Picky! Okay, Jack is on the left not on Matthews' left and Justice is on theright, not on Matthews' right. But the picture is captioned'Whitechapel at Whitehall' and the figure is wielding a knife and if you put Whitechapel and a knife-wielding assassin together in 1889 I submit that the probability is virtually a certainty that the figure is intended to be the Ripper. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 11:44 am | | Bob
The Cloak and Dagger Club was founded in 1995
to study Jack the Ripper and Whitechapel. It meets monthly, every other month being a meeting with a guest speaker - the December meeting is a social event, though, with the cast reprising the successful little show which opened the Ipswich Conference (Don Rumbelow stepping in to the shoes of Jeremy Beadle). The meetings are held at the City Darts pub in Whitechapel (formerly the Pricess Alice) and many members can be found in the pub at various times during the late afternoon The Club publishes Ripperologist, a magazine which contains news, views and articles about the case and the history of the area and to which everybody interested in the Ripper should subscribe.
All the best
Paul |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 01:42 pm | | Paul:
Just after posting my piece about the cartoon I did what I should have done which was to check the source instead of relying on Paul Feldman's book and yes, the figure is JtR not because of the title but because in teeny-weeny letters under the figure it says: "Jack the Ripper" and this undoubtedly is a linking of the two most famous crimes of the time in order to make a point. I'm therefore wrong when I said that the two cases had never been linked. I'd be astonished to find anything else linking them.
This shows clearly that you should never trust anything in Feldy's book
Peter. |
|
|
|
|
