|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 30, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through June 30, 2000
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 06:06 am |        | "What has Steve to gain by concocting such tale, the essence, if not the detail of which, is accurate?"
A good question, Mrs. Harrison. But given that Anne's account of her movements contradicts that which Steve is hypothesising, how can you possibly say with any confidence that "the essence" of the story is accurate? It appears that you have only Professor Rubinstein's impressions to go on - surely insufficient grounds for such a claim. The fact is, we do not know what Steve has "concocted", what is genuine, or what is faulty recollection prompted by a reading of Feldman.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 07:30 am | | Hi Guy,
I guess we'd have to wait and see if there are any further details to confirm the accuracy of "the essence", regarding what Steve Powell could be expected to know about Anne's time in Aussieland, if he was concocting everything from Feldy's book.
An example is that, if pure invention, he guessed that Anne did in fact work in Sydney at one time. Okay, a reasonable guess, but one which could have blown his story out of the water from the outset if Anne had only worked in say Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth....I could go on. :-)
Anyway, no doubt we will hear more. I have emailed Jules and Leanne, among others, to alert them to Shirley's post.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 07:37 am | | Hi Paul,
Confucius say:
"Trying to make Beggy look silly is like throwing boomerang."
And he also say:
"G'day mate. Those Aussies get in everywhere."
:-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 07:43 am | | DARK DEEDS DOWN-UNDER?
Since Prof. Rubinstein is wrong on so many points already, why should his opinions be accepted on any new aspects that arise? Wait for my 'second open letter' to this chap and you will see what I mean.
In the meantime can we be shown the emails from Steve which are described as "increasingly extraordinary in their detail"? |
Author: Dear Diary
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 09:33 am | | | "Paul Begg was the first person, as I recall, to seriously consider the possibility that the diary could be an old forgery, perhaps written to somehow help Florence." - Feldman, page 91. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 09:53 am | | | Hi there anonymous poster at diary@hoax.com. Are you simply quoting from one of your favourite books or is there a point you wish us to divine from your message? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 10:07 am | | Great.
We have at least one serious professional writer who has been prepared to consider possibilities, other than the first one which smacks them in the face.
Do I take it that others, besides Dear Diary, would also regard this as a positive, if not essential, quality for maintaining objectivity?
Good.
Let's hear some more nominations. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dear Diary
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 05:22 pm | | "I was involved with this project because of, I suppose, Paul Begg. Those words 'We simply can't shake it' started my fascination with the docuement." - Feldman, page 37.
"Yet Paul Begg was adamant: 'There is nothing in this diary that disproves it historically.'" - Feldman, page 37.
"If the diary was a forgery, then it was probable that its author would have slipped up, somewhere, on some minute detail of the known facts about the 'accepted' victims. Paul Begg and his associates had not discovered any such discrepancy - at least not yet." - Feldman, page 37.
"Paul Begg's early comment that he and his colleagues 'simply can't shake it' (the Ripper content of the diary) allowed me to feel confident that nobody else would." - Feldman, page 292. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 02:41 am | | | Excellent! "Dear Diary" can read and use an index. And copy. That's really, really good. Now, is there a point? |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 03:09 am | | Hi, Paul, Melvin, Shirley, and everyone:
On Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 05:48 pm in his "HARD FACTS PLEASE" post, Melvin Harris wrote in part:
"At this point let me remind readers that I have for years urged that a dummy copy of this Diary should be created and displayed in a prominent shop window in Liverpool. An appeal for anyone who has seen or handled such a journal before 1992, to come forward, might well produce some results. An accurate facsimile could easily be made by a skilled binder and would cost less than fifty pounds. No one associated with making money out of the Diary has ever risked displaying such a copy. Why?"
Melvin added: "So if anyone is interested in making a real contribution to new research why not join me in pressing for a display of a facsimile Diary?"
For Melvin's information, I recall that such a facsimile Diary was offered to me as one of the organizers of the April 2000 US convention held in Park Ridge, New Jersey, for display at the event, although in the end it was not ultimately sent over from England and displayed. I believe the person who offered to send us the facsimile was either Shirley Harrison or Doreen Montgomery, although it may have been Robert Smith, each of whom was in contact with us prior to the convention. I have been unable to find the e-mail in which the offer to send over the facsimile Diary was made but will continue to look for it.
In any case, it would appear that such a facsimile Diary already exists and thus would not have to be newly created. For my part, I can well see the utility in such a public display of a facsimile Diary in Liverpool and would think that such a public exhibition of the facsimile document might bear fruit. It is certainly worth a try. Perhaps Shirley Harrison would care to address this point?
Best regards
Chris George, Editor, Ripper Notes
http://www.casebook-productions.org/rn.htm
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
conference@casebook-productions.org
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 03:17 am | | I'm curious, what is the purpose of your post?
Are you trying to paint Paul into a corner, is that it? Do you intend to slander Paul further, are you trying to question his integrity, his honesty; just what is it you're trying to say? If you have a strong enough belief in your convictions, why do you find it necessary to hide; what are you afraid of? Are you personally weak? Or is it your point to simply slander another human being without purpose? Lets see how that works.
Is this something so vital to your life that you must engage in personal assault, and innuendo to achieve it? Are you are afraid of legal action, or of staining your reputation?
Where you always a wimp. I'll bet you used to wet the bed, you probably still do, don't ya? Don't be afraid to admit it, people have much more sympathy for a bed wetter with a weak personality these days. I'll bet, if you post the same innuendo under your real name, no one will be all that pissed off with you, or is that a bad choice of words on my part?
You know, medicine has come along way in dealing with your problem, I read an article in Time magazine, that says they now have willie clamps, that you put on before bed time, that would prevent any….accidents. It sounds a tad painful, but you might like that.
If you find the whole process to expensive, perhaps in your case, you could get away with using a hair pin, its probably a better fit for you in any case, as the Time article indicated;
timid little wimps are usually not all that well endowed to begin with. Were you always the outcast at school; no one wanted to hang out with you because you were a tad jerky, or do you prefer bizarre?
Well now is the time for you to shine, and prove how wrong they were, OK boy-o.
Just state your case like a grown up, and stand behind your beliefs, and I'm sure no one will mention anything about body odor, or greasy, spiky hair. Do you know why? It's because you had the courage to say what you think, and the moral conviction to be identified with your principles. OK? Feel better? Now you can hurry off to the Laundromat with those sheets.
Tootle loo |
Author: Dear Diary
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 03:54 am | | | "Frankly I'm also intrigued by the possibility that, if a forgery, the Journal isn't a modern forgery. And if it isn't a modern forgery, I wonder if it just might reflect a genuine tradition which linked Maybrick with the Ripper crimes. Maybe a local journalist heard the rumours and wrote the Journal as the foundation for a few newspaper articles (much as Melvin Harris has suggested or shown was the case with the psychic Lees). Or perhaps someone heard the rumour and planned to blackmail Michael Maybrick." - Paul Begg, January 1997. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:10 am | | Not to be the self-elected guardian of good taste or anything, but could I humbly suggest that people please post their personal attacks and their subsequent rebuttles on the Read this First: "Personal Discussions" Board and leave this area to intelligent and productive discussions of the Diary?
--Just a suggestion. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:32 am | | Dear Diary,
So what!
Joseph - I understand why you are upset; but actually I was a bit hurt myself by your slander post; as if it is someone's fault that at school he didn't want to follow the masses, and was excluded by them; I myself have learned the hard way not to see myself as 'weird', but 'special'. And I know you did not intend to hurt others, but you can when generalising so: it's like declaring that a rapist victim was asking for it in her mini-skirt!
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:47 am | | Hi R.J,
Poor old Stephen Ryder has tried to tighten this site up with the use of passwords etc, but it seems beyond his powers to stop those determined to demonstrate their own personal jealousies and bitterness.
The irony, which 'Dear Diary' and other assorted pseudos can never grasp, is that they are in fact doing Paul Begg no end of good (and those they appear to be supporting a huge disservice), as anyone with the intelligence of an amoeba will see, it is far better to have these types batting for the other side (or should I say, the far side?).
Hi Chris,
I hope Shirley will address your point about the facsimile diary. I think it's a great idea.
Have a good weekend all.
And Dear Diary, could you publish your own diary soon? It would really give Dr Forshaw and others something to get their teeth into. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dear Diary
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:55 am | | | "...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)..." - Paul Begg, 14th June 2000. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:55 am | | Hi All
It is possible that 'Dear Diary' has a point to make, but in not making the point himself or herself, is trying to provide us with the source material so that we can read and understand and reach point for ourselves. And it is possible that he/she is using a non-descriptive name like 'Dear Diary' so that we see the evidence and be uninfluenced by whatever the author's name may convey. On the other hand, 'dear diary' may just be an •••••••. I know what conclusion I've reached. May I therefore suggest that we ignore 'dear diary' until such time as he/she feels capable of enlightening us by actually making a point. Let's instead adopt Mr. Palmer's suggestion and get on with 'intelligent and productive discussions of the Diary'. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 05:31 am | | O Costly Intercourse of Death
A couple of weeks ago when I wrote to Mr. Skinner, I admitted that I had had some difficulties in believing Mike Barrett's 'Confessions'. They are odd affadavits, with a strange mixture (it seems to me) of revelation and elusiveness. They are not wholly compelling. And yet, having taken a closer look at the affidavits, I feel the need to backslide a bit now. I realise Barrett didn't inspire confidence in many of you, but some of his points seem to hold up to scrutiny. Bear with me a moment and I'll explain a couple of the things I came up with.
First of all, in Barrett's 'Confession' of January 5th, 1995 he makes the following statement:
"Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page,
quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH".
This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF
LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose
1540-1671 (sic) Edited by Christopher Ricks,
however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she
wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'.
Now I did some rummaging in the library and found a copy of Christopher Rick's book English Poetry and Prose: 1540-1574 and it does indeed contain the quote mentioned by Barrett. It is from the poem 'Sancta Maria' by the English religious poet Richard Crashaw(17th Century)-- not exactly a household name-- with the whole quote being:
O costly intercourse
Of deaths, & worse,
Divided loves. While son & mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another.
(p. 187)
For those who have not seen a copy of Christopher Rick's book, the important point is that it is not an anthology of English poetry; it is a fairly slim book of critical essays on English writers of the 16th and 17th Centuries: Milton, Donne, and the like. They are dense, scholarly essays with a smattering of quotations from the authors in question inserted in the text. It strikes me that if Barrett was lying in his confession and working backwards to find a readily available citation for this quote, it would have been almost impossible. First of all, he would have had to have noticed that the five tossed aside words "O Costly Intercouse of Death" (page 250 of Shirley Harrison's book, in the facimile of the Diary) were indeed a quotation. (Maybe that's a no-brainer). Secondly, though, he would have had to have somehow discovered that this was by the rather obscure poet Richard Crashaw. Finally (the hard part) he would have had to have found the quotation in a text book or anthology of some sort. Now I have checked. Poems are indexed by their first (or sometimes last) lines. None of the poetry indexes I have looked into contained Crashaw's poem. It is an obscure piece. Furthermore, the essay that contains the quote is not wholly about Crashaw; so, one couldn't go to Rick's book hoping to find it there. Crashaw isn't even in the table of contents. But it is a quotation set aside from a prose text that one might seize upon while thumbing through a book looking for a suitable reference. I submit that Barrett could only have come up with the Christopher Rick citation in his confession if he had
already known it was there or had inside information that somebody else (the forger) knew it was there. I really don't see how it could be otherwise. So maybe there is some truth to his story?
On a second point, I am less sure, and am asking for help. Barrett made the claim that he intentionally made an anachronism in the Diary, calling the pub in Liverpool Poste House when its name at the time of James Maybrick was Muck Midden. Barrett claims that he had actually worked in the Poste House Public House in the late 1980s, and used the wrong name for the pub so he could demonstrate the Diary's falseness "should I later need to prove what I had done".
I did some checking on this, but have come up more or less empty handed. Unless I am mistaken, I think Mr. Melvin Harris is the only person who has mentioned in print to have looked into this point, so maybe he could post his findings. I have found a book called "A Guide to Liverpool & Birkenhead" (1913-1914) and there is no mention of Poste House....but, for that matter, nor does it mention Muck Midden. There is also a book called "A Pub on Every Corner" by Freddy O'Connor, a local historian in Liverpool, who is writing about the history of the pubs. The information needed might well be there, but I have not been able to locate this book in the United States. Possibly someone can help?
I have a few other points I'd like to make about Barrett's affadavits--about the ink, etc--but I'm running long already. I want to give a small bow in the direction of Keith Skinner, and acknowledge that he's right in saying that Barrett has not been forthcoming with evidence to back-up his confessions; still, in all honesty, I can't bring myself to dismiss them just yet.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 05:35 am | | Good idea Paul.
And to that end, I'd like to quote a letter from page 317 of Shirley's updated paperback. It was sent from private detective Alan Gray (who I believe is one of Melvin Harris's sources, though I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong) to Michael Barrett on 15th October 1996:
'Be assured that if we can possibley [sic] prove without doubt where you brought [sic] the Diary from I can almost guarantee you will make 'money'. I have a National Newspaper ready to do business BUT we must get the evidence that will support you.
Then watch them jump because your credibility will then be 100%. Feldman is about to release a new book. The time is right to pay these terrible people back. So let's do it.
Phone me...'
Did this powerful message induce Mike to cough up anything of any use? Did it b*****s!
Any comments on how this affects the hypothesis that Mike was involved in this forgery?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 05:45 am | | Sorry R.J, our paths crossed.
The 'o costly intercourse' stuff is really intriguing and I'll let others (like Shirley, Keith or Melvin) comment on Mike's role in this part of the story.
Mike's claims that he used the wrong name for the pub so he could demonstrate the Diary's falseness "should I later need to prove what I had done", sound pretty contrived, but I guess stranger things have been suggested. :-)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
