|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 20, 2000
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 08:23 am |        | Karoline:- You are a wanton tease!
You wrote "Could you give us your good hard evidential reasons for believing the thing to be an old forgery, rather than a modern scam?"
I don't think it is an old forgery. I simply don't dismiss the possibility. I am now, as I always have been, trying to ascertain who forged the 'diary'. The obvious answer is that Mike and Ann did, but I remain uncertain and if Ann didn't...? As Caz says, if we have a professional handwriting analysis done and if that analysis is decided upon as the proof positive, what happens if the 'diary handwriting is shown not to be Mike or Ann's?
Allowing that Mike and Ann didn't write the 'diary' does not mean it is old, but it does mean that I have to keep an open mind about Ann's story being true, but that's a couple of stations down the line and we haven't got anywhere near there yet.
Keith has got there, of course, because he has spent a considerable amount of time with Ann and over the years he has concluded that she is telling the truth. Now, Melvin is right in suggesting tht Ann might be a very accomplished liar (although I think that it just an opinion about her, not a conclusion based on any hard and fast evidence at all), but she might be a pitifully poor liar and Keith's assessment be correct. I don't know. But I certainly feel that Keith's impressions should be allowed to weigh in the balance.
So currently this isn't about modern forgery vs. old forgery, but whether the 'Mike and Ann did it for financial gain' theory really hangs together all that well and if it doesn't, what alternatives we have. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:36 am | | My congratulations to Melvin Harris for his recent post which clearly shows the probable diary story. I believe that this is now the end of the diary story and we can all get on to more productive things. Unfortunately however,I think its quite plain now that Paul Begg will not answer any questions that he thinks will undermine his views on the diary and whoever wrote it. My questions were pretty simple ones calling on him to answer with the benefit of his special knowledge from the early days of the diary. Does he try to enlighten us with information that conceivably might change our opinions on whether the diary was created before or after 1987? No such luck: he just uses the well worn tactic of attacking someone else. Is the "mistake" he mentions that of accusing Cliff Irving of being a forger before the Hughes biography case? Hard to tell; now Cliff is just a "fluent forger" who understands "the psychology of what he was doing." Funny, I thought the psychology of Clifford Irving and David Suskind was to make a million dollars and relax in Ibiza.
Paul Begg has done some excellent work in the past, in particular on the "missing" Norfolk Regiment, for which he should have gotten a credit on the recent BBC programme. It is a great shame that his refusal to reply to reasonable questions has left us in the position of knowing so little about the "birth" of the diary and the personalities involved. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 09:36 am | | Copied from the post of George on 14th june 2000, on topic Marking on Mary Jane Kelly unde the Victims board:
" The Maybrick diary hardback edition published 1993. On page 285 paragraph 245 he writes:
‘I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all eyes to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me. I wonder if next time I can carve my funny little rhyme on the whores flesh? I believe I will give it a try. It amuses me if nothing else. Life is sweet, very sweet. regret I did not take any of it away with me it is supper time, I could do with a kidney or two ha ha.’ "
What does the first few lines tell us about the diary, if new evidence has been found: The left cheeck of Mary Jane Kelly was carved up. The Carvings were not so unmeanignful as we have thought. The word 'FIVE' has been carved there. This is not only to be seen on the Maybrick picture version of MJK, but also on previous versions. It seems there was something for all eyes to see, but it took us 110 years!
This certainly could not have been found in a book, written as fact. Then would this support an old forgery, done by the real ripper but trying to frame Maybrick? Or was it forged by an insider of the investigation? |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 10:56 am | | CAZ,
Please don't go away.
Love,
David |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 11:28 am | | | Peter:- I don't know what you're on, but it certainly isn't legal and I think it is probably another planet. You were FIRST asked a question and you still haven't answered it. All you have done is prevaricate, ask questions of your own and then try to reverse the whole thing by trying to make out that I am the one not answering any of the questions! You are playing a childish little game that isn't cutting any ice with me or, I suspect, anyone else. So stop mucking about and answer the bloody question Keith first asked or just shut up! You're not a fool, you're possible even a decent chap, but the purpose of this dumb little game your indulging in is transparent, so either answer the questions asked of you or let's terminate this and any future discussion right now. |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 07:09 pm | | To Melvin Harris
Thanks for pointing out the bits from the Underwood book...To be honest, when I first read it I regarded it as such a pot-boiler that I passed my copy on to someone else, no wonder I didn't even think of it as a possible source,(doesn't mean I agree with you otherwise!!)
Steve s. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 18 June 2000 - 12:42 pm | | I've been asked why I said so positively that the handwriting in the diary was not that of James Maybrick. One of the reasons was of course the foreword in Feldmans 1997 book wherein is stated: "Keith supplied me with photocopies of the "Diary" along with a photocopy of James Maybrick's will. The handwriting clearly wasn't the same and I wasn't very impressed." Of course if the will itself was forged then that statement as well as others is wrong. That forgery however is not very likely.
The questions which I put to Paul Begg and which to my knowledge have not been answered are:
What do you mean regarding Clifford Irving's admitted forgery of the Hughes letters? Was he an accomplished forger before this or is this the mistake you refer to? I believe that Cliff's first Hughes letter forgery was based on an illustration of a genuine Hughes letter published in "Life." And still McGraw-Hill believed in it! What fools these publishers be!Please elucidate.
In order for us to consider who the diary forger/s were it seems obvious that we ought to know more about the background of Mike and Anne. There are significant comments made in Feldmans' book and you or your colleague must know if those comments are true or false. Tell us.
Why did you say: "We simply can't shake it." Or is this wrongly quoted?
It's nice to know that your "untrained eye" confirms my opinion that the diary writing does not look like the handwriting of either Mike or Anne. This is the sort of comment which, when I made it caused you to make numerous injudical comments about me. I will accept your apology. Whether someone else wrote the thing or whether a reliable forensic document examiner (should such a creature exist) could say that elements do match the writing of Anne or Mike, nothing alters my own, untrained opinion. Did anyone else profit immediately from the diary? Unless that someone is either dead or anonymously accepting a kickback of some of the royalties, one would have to suspect: no.
Although it is not impossible that someone who "was a demonstrable liar" could at some point be telling the truth, logic tells us that such a persons story should be examined much more carefully than that of a person who was normally truthfull. Indeed with the first person, it would be essential for them to prove their story rather than have it accepted as truth solely because they have said that it was true.
Bearing on that, we surely need to ask whether the newest diary provenance story relies solely on one persons word.
I also ask on whose word "the fights Mike and Ann claimed to have had when Mike wanted to publish the 'diary' itself" relies. Is it logical and reasonable to suppose that someone would produce a family heirloom the value of which must have been obvious, even to somebody with the intelligence of the lesser spotted grebe and give it to their partner on the strength of an extraordinary story and with the intention of saving their marriage? Let alone actually forging the thing specifically for that purpose.
I'd also like to mention this point: "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." But WE don't know. If Paul Begg is using his "Royal" personal pronoun here, (and it subsequently does become:"as far as I know...") we, the public need to know his reason for supposing that they had no knowledge of Ripper, Maybrick or forgery.
Lastly, thankfully, I'm not aware of any questions that I have failed to answer. The implication is that whatever the question was, it was important and life-changing. If Paul Begg would care to put it again then I will be delighted to refer him to my previous answer or to restate the answer in simple language. If he would say it in reasonable language rather than the unfortunate terms in which he wrote on the 16th, I would be doubly obliged. If however he is unwilling to do any of the above, then I shall be forced to treat his future correspondence in the same manner as I currently do for Keith Skinner. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 05:51 am | | Peter Birchwood has advanced a hypothesis in which Mike Barratt and Ann Graham jointly forged the 'diary' for financial gain. He has further argued that Ann Graham developed the 'it has been in my family for years' story in order to secure a percentage of the royalties. His theory represents Ann Graham as a scheming and manipulative liar who has used and abused the trust and friendship of a number of people.
It has been pointed out to Peter Birchwood that to the untrained eye the handwriting of the 'diary' matches neither that of Mike nor Ann. Peter Birchwood has been asked to exlain how, if neither of them penned the document, this effects his hypothesis.
It has also been pointed out that Mike Barrett has not been able to give a coherent account of how the forgery was conceived and executed, that the journalist to whom he first confessed was unimpressed and observed that Mike couldn't answer simple questions such as naming the places from which he bought the 'book' and the ink, and how details he has provided have not stood up to examination. It has been argued that these reasons suggest that Mike Barrett was not involved in the forgery but was an innocent patsy. Peter Birchwood has been asked to comment on this and how his hypothesis would be effected if Mike wasn't involved in the forgery.
Peter Birchwood has not addressed these points. Instead he has prevaricated, even to the point of asking a string of questions of his own and trying to make out that I am the one prevaricating and not answering. Now he indicates that he will terminate direct correspondance with me. That's is fine by me, but he still hasn't addressed the points raised several days ago.
Finally, it is very clear that Peter Birchwood introduces material that can have little meaning for most of the readers - most recently his reference to someone in Australia whom Ann Graham is supposed to have told about the 'diary' many years ago. When tackled by Keith Skinner about this kind of material, Peter Birchwood refused to answer on the Boards, claiming that the material was too esoteric. Keith Skinner quite reasonably pointed out that as Peter Birchwood had introduced the material in the first place it should be discussed openly. Peter Birchwood's response was to terminate public communication with Keith. To my eyes this looked very much like Peter Birchwood was more than happy to try and rubbish Keith publicly, but was not prepared to risk the reverse. Thus, Peter Birchwood will introduce some material like the man in Australia, yet won't reply when challenged, when his confident claims are questioned or when errors are attributed to him.
These Boards are for the open discussion of the 'diary' by those who are interested in discussing it. If Peter Bichwood is content to confidently advance a hypothesis, then he should be prepared to straighforwardly answer points which challenge it. He has not done so. Peter Birchwood does not have to afford me the same privilage as Keith Skinner. There is nothing further to say and I am happy to let readers draw their own conclusions about Peter Birchwood's actions. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 06:19 am | | Hi Peter,
You wrote:
‘I also ask on whose word "the fights Mike and Ann claimed to have had when Mike wanted to publish the 'diary' itself" relies.’
I asked the same thing some weeks ago, because it did seem illogical to me that Anne would fight to prevent the diary being published if the sole purpose was a forgery for financial gain. I assumed, that being the case, that Mike would have sought to cast doubt on this part of Anne’s testimony. However, as both Keith and Paul have stated, far from denying the huge row they had when Anne claims she wanted to destroy the thing, Mike actually confirmed it, and appeared totally bewildered and frustrated by Anne’s attitude.
Okay, we only have Anne and Mike’s word for it that the row happened (and they are both liars), but apart from the ‘Tony gave it to Mike’ story, there are precious few other instances I can bring to mind where the pair have not actively contradicted one another’s stories.
You wrote:
‘Although it is not impossible that someone who "was a demonstrable liar" could at some point be telling the truth, logic tells us that such a persons story should be examined much more carefully than that of a person who was normally truthfull.’
I don’t agree with you Peter. Are you saying that if Anne or Mike both had impeccable track records for honesty their stories would not need to be examined every bit as carefully as Keith has been doing all this time? Especially if one of the paragons of virtue was telling him they had a JtR diary in the family which, according to expert opinion, could not have existed before 1987? Wouldn’t that make Keith’s nut even harder to crack?
But do you accept that ‘normally’ truthful could also apply to someone whose known lies have been told under circumstances they did not consider remotely normal? I am sure Keith has incorporated this aspect into his examination of the modern story.
Presumably, the reason Paul supposes Mike and Anne had no knowledge of Ripper, Maybrick or forgery, is that he has found no evidence to that effect. I’m trying to work out what other possible reason is required here, and what you are suggesting he is withholding from us.
If you have found some positive evidence, what is your reason for not informing the board, presuming it would help confirm a ‘modern forgery for gain’ theory, which revolves of necessity around Anne’s forging know-how, however slight or shoddy?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline L
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 08:53 am | | Paul (hello darling still thinking of you) Caz, Peter.
Please forgive this slightly peremptory intrusion. But really - you are all going over old ground and proceeding in a perfect circle.
We are back with the old problem of abandoning fact and data in favour of wild and ultimately futile speculation.
There is only one rational and self-respecting way to go here - and that is for those concerned to lay out the hard evidence in the case - simply and clearly and with as little subjective interpretation as possible.
Melvin has already done this admirably for the 'modern forgery' argument. His argument is coherent, powerful and persuasive.
Those people like Keith and Caz who believe the thing to be (possibly or definitely) an old artefact must now do the same.
Keith, some time ago now you promised to give me a comprehensive list of the reaearch done so far and your own hard data that argues for an early forgery.
The time is is now surely right for you to provide what you promised.
Respond to Mr. Harris. make your case in clear,well-defined evidential terms.
Then, once we have both cases clearly outlined here - we can begin some meaningful discussion of the relative merits.
But if this isn't done - then how much credibility can the 'old forgery' case have left?
Karoline (aka Wanton Tease) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Hi Karoline,
I agree we have been going over old ground and appear to be going round in circles. If I'm not careful, I'll probably eventually only succeed in going up my own a..., in my rather grovelly attempts to bend over backwards :-)
So I do appreciate what you are saying, and it is up to those who cannot quite bring themselves to dismiss Anne's 'in the family' story, despite all the evidence that the Diary was written post-1987, to show their reasoning, judgement and evidence, flawed or otherwise, warts an' all.
I agree that Melvin has done all but prove that Anne's writing is on the written page. And again it is up to those not 100% convinced to put the case for Anne's defence, such as it is.
I also agree that until this is done to everyone's complete satisfaction, the case for 'old forgery' is lacking in credibility. I also think the case for Anne or Mike having penned the Diary lacks credibility from what I have managed to gather thus far, but as an amateur enthusiast with plenty of other interests, I would ask your forebearance for past mistakes and procrastination. I am making a small start on further investigations, prompted by Peter's first posts to this discussion, among other things.
As a fresh start, I now have to get my arse in gear and bring the latest posts to Keith's attention. Then hopefully, and eventually (though I don't suppose the blessed thing is going to disappear overnight), I can help get some of the answers which you have been seeking.
I'm really sorry for spending more time gassing than getting on with it.
Now for Gawd's sake, Paul, take Karoline away from all this madness and see to her needs before she changes her mind. ;-)
Love and best wishes,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 03:29 am | | | Hi Karoline and Caz:- one quick point. I didn't really appreciate that this discussion was about modern forgery vs. old forgery. Keith has spent a considerable amount of time in Ann's company and he believes her story about the 'diary' having been in her family for some time. But he isn't arguing an old forgery. He is questioning his belief in Ann, examining the details of the various stories, the theories and the conclusions. He is asking questions of those who firmly hold other beliefs, such as those who confidently claim that 'Mike and Ann did it for financial gain', not only seeking to clarify his own thinking, but also to encouarge others to question and test their own conclusions. Thus one asks whether the 'financial gain' theory really is all that solid, whether the 'save the marriage' theory, though prima facie improbable, could in fact have merit, whether Mike was really involved in the forgery, whether Ann worked alone or with someone else, whether Ann was really involved at all, whether Ann could be protecting someone else (such as Billy), and so on. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 04:56 am | | Hi Paul,
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see that Keith's stated belief here recently (via Stewart Evans) "that the 'diary' is not a modern hoax,...", and my understanding that he is still in the process of asking questions and examining other people's theories, is not the same as 'arguing' an old forgery here on the board.
I am one of those who "cannot quite....dismiss Anne's 'in the family' story", and I am one of those "not 100% convinced" she penned the diary, based on my current knowledge (as if anyone was still in any doubt :-)).
So I feel a personal responsibility to go away and learn more before even thinking of making or delivering any definitive judgements to the waiting multitudes (ha ha), or showing the mechanics of how I reached them. Point is, I'm nowhere near there yet, so it would be foolish for anyone to expect little ol' me to attempt a coherent (me??), powerful or persuasive counter-argument to Melvin's.
I hope this clears up any remaining queries about who is discussing what, and why.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 06:33 am | | Hello, Paul:
Isn't this is contradiction???
You state, "Keith has spent a considerable amount of time in Ann's company and he believes her story about the 'diary' having been in her family for some time. But he isn't arguing an old forgery."
If Keith believes Anne Graham's story, he has also to believe that the Diary dates back to 1950 or before, doesn't he? That is, the Diary IS an old forgery. He can't have it both ways.
Chris |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:19 am | | Paul, Caz, Chris,
Thanks for the reiteration Paul. Though I tend to agree with Chris that your post is entirely embodied by contradiction.
However, I repeat, there is just no future in debating one another's subjective feelings.
Historical analysis is not about spending six months discussing what Paul says Keith thinks Ann might have meant, or about slagging each other off with innuendo and high moral indignation.
It's about hard verifiable data.
Regardless of anyone's motives, preferences, emotions or what you will - the issue is simply this -
Either there is good solid evidence to suggest the diary is an old forgery - or there isn't.
if there IS - then let's see it.
if there ISN'T - then what is all this about?
Karoline |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:38 am | | Hi Chris
Yes, I appreciated that there appeared to be a contradiction, that's why I tried to draw the clear distinction between (a) arguing that the 'diary' is an old forgery and (b) questioning whether it is a modern one. Keith believes Ann's story and accordingly must accept that the 'diary' must is an old forgery, but that doesn't mean he is arguing that it is an old forgery. What he is doing is asking people to re-assess their own perceptions of who forged the 'diary' and the motives behind it. In effect he's simply asked, 'Okay, so let's look at the argument that Mike and Ann forged the diary for financial gain. How is that argument effected by the 'diary' handwriting looking like neither Mike nor Ann's?' This, I think, is a good question and one which should be faced up to.
I certainly don't believe that the 'diary' is an old forgery, but I do wonder whether Mike Barrett had a hand in its creation or at any time ever really thought it was anything but genuine. I therefore query the confident assertion that Mike and Ann forged it together for financial gain. And if they didn't forge it together, who forged it?
I am not trying to prove that the 'diary' is an old forgery, but I am trying to test various points in the argument that it is a modern one. Keith is doing the same. He may be doing that because he believes Ann's story. I am doing it because I want to know the truth and because I firmly believe that we advance knowledge and understanding by asking questions and assessing and re-assessing our conclusions. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 08:14 am | | Hi Karoline
I'm intriqued by your statement that historical analysis is exclusively about hard, verifiable data and wonder how that is reconciled with the extensive theorising which fills the pages of academic journals. I'm likewise interested in how it places the work of historians who can't verify their data because there is nobody alive who witnessed it. It seems to me that there is a tendency to liken history to science, but I think they are separate and distinct disciplines - but we've had this argument before I think.
Anyway, as I replied to Chris, there is no contradiction in what I wrote. Arguing against theory 'a' is not the same as arguing in favour of theory 'b', even if you happen to believe theory 'b'. Keith has not been saying that the 'diary' is an old forgery, but has been questioning the argument that it is a modern one forged by Mike and Ann for the purpose of financial gain. Consequently he is not currently required to present hard and fast evidence that it is an old forgery. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 11:17 am | | Hi Paul,
Yes, you are right - theory is the backbone of historical enqiry.
But theory based firmly on hard reliable evidence.
I'm sure a writer with your background doesn't need me to tell him that.
You say you are "trying to test various points in the argument that [the diary] is a modern one. Keith is doing the same."
Okay, but would it be possible for you to give us some solid facts about how are you going about doing this?
At risk of repeating myself ad nauseam -
do you or Keith or anyone have any solid evidence that suggests the thing is NOT a modern fake?
If yes, could you follow Melvin's example and share it with us here, so at least the discussion will be properly informed?
if not - then please explain - what is this all about?
I'm confused.
K |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Hi Karoline:- "At risk of repeating myself ad nauseam - do you or Keith or anyone have any solid evidence that suggests the thing is NOT a modern fake?"
I am not avoiding answering this question, but it simply isn't relevant to the topic being discussed. We are looking at the modern forgery theory which proposes that Mike and Ann forged the 'diary' for financial gain. Arguments have been advanced which question that theory and it has been suggested (albeit only by me) that an alternative scenario might be as likely.
That's all this is about. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 02:00 pm | | Hi Karoline,
Following the merry tradition of answering a question with another one, can I ask you if this particular ‘modern hoax involving Anne’ theory is somehow exempt from the rules of the game regarding theories in general? Or have I misunderstood those rules?
If someone questions anyone else’s theory (while not necessarily ruling it out), such as Feldy and Shirley’s Maybrick, Melvin’s D’Onston, or Martin’s Cohen, the questioner is under no obligation either to disprove it or put up a more viable alternative, the onus always resting with the theorist to prove their case.
How many times have we heard a theorist say, “Prove my suspect didn’t do it”, only to be greeted with a howl of that high moral indignation you mention, “We can huff and we can puff, but we don’t have to prove a thing.”
However, if the questioner wishes to put forward an alternative theory, this then becomes fair game for questions from all-comers, until the theory is either proved or withdrawn from consideration.
As I see it, Keith is doing his questioning bit regarding the ‘modern hoax’ theories, such as those put forward by Melvin and Peter without, as far as I can judge, putting up an alternative theory for our consideration. If he does so, this in turn can be questioned.
Paul is interested in Keith’s findings, but has explained (this is like déjà vu, it really is) that he is not putting forward an ‘old forgery’ theory either.
So, in summary, unless there is a special exemption clause for Melvin or Peter’s theories, or they no longer wish them to be considered, can I assume that anyone who reads about them on these boards is free to ask whatever questions they choose, without obligation? Unlike the theorists, who have an obligation to prove their case?
And does this begin to answer your question, ‘what is all this about?’
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
