|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 1, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through July 1, 2000
Author: Dear Diary
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 06:00 am |        | These posts have been placed on here by way of being an experiment. For, of course, apart from the odd emphasis here and there, they have been neither derogatory nor slanderous to Mr. Begg. In fact they contained no words of ours whatsoever! They were merely placed out of curiosity to see what the reaction of Mr. Begg, and certain of his ardent followers, would be. And the results have been most enlightening.
What was most amazing of all, of course, was the fact that Mr. Begg's own words and those of Mr. Feldman's were immediately interpreted as an attack, and even slanderous? How could they be? Even Mr. Begg's response was ultra-defensive. For all they know I may be a staunch supporter of Mr. Begg, merely trying to show his past views on this topic.
And, indeed, this is not an attack on Mr. Begg. But we are left wondering about the mental condition of some of the posters who responded. Particularly notable amongst these was the hysterical response of Mr. Triola. He really does need some counselling. One is left with the impression that he is here reduced to his normal manner of speech, and level of scholarly debate. But, Mr. Begg remains to be congratulated on resisting such histrionics and on the whole acquitting himself in a rather better way than the foul-mouthed Mr. Triola.
But, as we appear to be causing so much upset, you will all be pleased to learn that 'Dear Diary' (a mere pseudonym plucked out of thin air, with no hidden meaning) is retiring to the, as others see it, nether world from whence it came. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 07:26 am | | Dear Diary
It seems each of us has achieved what we set out to do. I doubt your experiment was as innocently motivated, as you would have us believe. Quoting out of context is just as pointed an attack as the one I made against you. You need to bring someone down in order to build yourself up. You twist words to malign, and denigrate, similar to another person we're familiar with.
The difference between us is I sign my work, while you choose to hide. I speak from conviction, you have no conviction, your purpose is malicious, and so you hide in fear. You are afraid of the consequences, because you don't believe in what you're doing.
I'm not afraid of anything.
If you have something to say, of any value that will move these issues to a fruitful conclusion then get to it; otherwise, you're just another Validictor blowhard.
You and I can do this anyway you wish, we can debate the issues intelligently or you can hide behind anonymity, in which case, I will berate you in any manner I please, to the maximum that is allowable on these boards. It's your call.
Ms. De Schrijver,
As you have eloquently shown here with your every post, you are not "weird" you are wonderfully different. Your input is a positive attempt to move forward.
Unfortunately, what isn't different is the cowardly act of anonymous posters like Dear Diary who believe that attacking someone's credibility while hiding in the shadows is a morally acceptable part of debate. I will not try to influence you, but I will ask you to make a judgment based on your own ideas of right and wrong, and to support what you feel is right, and to speak out against the malice of what is wrong. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 08:44 am | | 'Dear Diary' has conducted a little experiment from which he or she - or should we assume from 'no words of ours whatsoever' that 'Dear Diary' is a Committee of two or more people whose identities cannot even be guessed at? - has drawn some conclusions. The expriment reminded me of the early days of computing. There was an expression, an acronymn really, that we don't hear too often these days: GIGO. It stood for 'Garbage In, Garbage Out', meaning that if the information you feed in is wrong, the answers you get out will be equally wrong.
I was also reminded of the story about an old lady who opened her door and immediately struck the stranger on her doormat over his baseball-cap covered head with a poker. The attack was completely unprovoked and those who witnessed it thought the old lady was mad, needed counselling, and had behaved in a thoroughly objectionable and, indeed, criminal way. However, what they didn't know was that at random times over the previous months a stranger wearing a baseball-cap had come to her front door and when she answered it had struck her and robbed her. She therefore armed herself with a sturdy poker and when next a man wearing a baseball cap came to her door she struck in anticipation of being attacked.
Few people here aren't annoyed and irritated by anonymous posters who appear once or twice, say something inflammatory, then vanish. Or the multiple first-time posters who seem to erupt from the woodwork like cockroaches in a sleazy hotel to give the completely false impression that a statement or observation has greater support than it actually does. Few of us haven't been greatly concerned by claims from some people that they have received anonymous, offensive and even threatening emails in consequence of debates that have taken place on these Boards.
It is not in the least surprising, therefore, that anonymous posters and first-timers injecting themselves contentiously into a debate immediately arouse suspicions and defensiveness and perhaps provoke attacks with a verbal poker. That anyone should react to that kind of post is hardly surprising. Indeed, it is rather to be expected. In fact it could (and I'm contentedly sure that it was)forecast. Had the posts been genuinely innofensive, then I'm sure they wouldn't have produced the response they did, but they were specifically intended to push buttons.
Secondly, although the posts said nothing derogatory, they were nevertheless extremely provocative: a pseudonymous poster, a fictitious email address, messages which made no point, and their timing - the posts didn't have to say anything derogatory. They were confrontational by their very nature. And 'Dear Diary's claim: "For all they know I may be a staunch supporter of Mr. Begg, merely trying to show his past views on this topic", serves only to highlight the inherent weaknesses in the poster's logic. A poster with noble intent would have declared their purpose, especially when asked, and almost certainly wouldn't have hidden behind a mask. The posts gave every indication of leading up to something which the poster did not want to give away by revealing his/her identity.
Thirdly, the perceived intent was correct. The purpose was not in any sense supportive. It was an attempt to show up myself and those who have generously supported me in a recent argument with Karoline. Nobody really over-reacted to nothing, they reacted to exactly what was happening.
So, what have we got? Did 'Dear Diary' place on these Boards a series of posts so unprovocative that they could easily have been from a supporter innocently citing the thoughts of Begg and were the supposedly ultra-defensive and hysterical responses therefore as unexpected as they were unneccessary? Or do we have a series of posts which on past experiences and current timing were calculated to be provocative and generate suspicion, an intent quickly and accurately perceived and reacted to defensively and in a way intended to rile and reveal the ultimate intent of the poster?
I rather feel that the latter alternative carries the most weight. If you throw a rock into a pond and there is a splash, you can't very well claim that you didn't know that the rock was a large, hard and heavy thing. And you can't honestly claim that the splash was a surprise either. But that is exactly what 'Dear Diary' does. Only instead of claiming that the rock wasn't a large, hard and heavy thing, he/she/they suggest that the posts were sweet, innocent and unprovocative. Which, of course, they weren't. The response - a strike in anticipation - wasn't a surprise either. The experiment was GIGO.
And proved nothing. Even if Joseph does need some counselling, which I am absolutely sure he doesn't, does that invalidate the potency and accuracy of any argument he has thus far advanced on these Boards? No it doesn't. And if I was ultra-defensive, is there anyone here who is going to stand back aghast with horror at that response, given the recent debate on the Board and in particular the attacks I suffered here last year from assorted anonymous and first-time posters?
I hope that he/she/they will now return to their toys and stop playing games here, allowing sensible people to discuss the subject for which this board was created. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 10:05 am | | Dear Diary - YOur experiment has a flaw: it would have had some value, if you had done this, when we still had no experience here with anonym posters who were in the habit of following around a particular poster, to pester them. I would have written also 'so what!' if it had been regarding Melvin, or any other poster here. You have proven only that after what has happened so many times, that we have a hightened sensitivity for anonym posters, with post contest piqued at a particular poster, and that we have the tendency to regard such posts negatively intended, since this has been our experience with the majority of them.
Mr. Triola - I react strongly to any such abusing language as you have used. I can see no right in condoning the pestering of other people, and calling their victims weeklings. There was no call to be that abusive to anybody. I'm no machiavellist who condones wrong conduct for the right reasons (and it is now the question if they were right reasons indeed).
Jill |
Author: Karoline L
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 10:38 am | | Okay Paul here it is.
I'm not Dear Diary, I have no clue who Dear Diary is - and to be frank I don't give a flying toss.
But oh boy am I ever tired of you.
I joined this conversation a few weeks ago to try and get a few answers to some questions that interested me.
I've been sick a long time, and I still have not too much energy. So I did not want controversy, nor to be given the runaround, nor did I want to be insulted.
I was simply interested, and feeling pleased to have enough strength to make a small contribution.
So I asked some questions.
I asked what researches you might have been doing, in case there is stuff going on I don't know.
I asked what evidence there is for an old forgery - because I'm curious, and would like to find out.
Did I get any answers?
Did I heck.
I got a lot of nasty snidery from Caz.
I got a lot of strange litigious demands from Keith.
And from you I got first evasion ('this isn't about hard evidence'; 'the old forgery topic isn't relevant'), and then accusations of 'ulterior motives', and then I got plain old-fashioned insult; (my understanding was 'pitifully shallow'.
You are now joined by a third individual whose references to bed-wetting you apparently consider entirely appropriate to a public intellectual discourse.
This is not what I came here for.
I do not think that reasonable questions politely expressed deserve this verbal bullying from anyone.
May I ask what is the matter with you?
I mean why are you trying to find obvious excuses for not answering simply honest questions?
It must be perfectly clear to any averagely observant person that you have no interest in actually solving this mystery.
You talk about wanting answers, yet refuse point blank to undertake any investigation, or even to help other people start one.
Every piece of common sense here comes from people like Chris George (who told you you were contradicting yourself), Guy Hatton. Peter B. or CMD.
Your contribution, is little more than a round of unanswerable questions designed to do nothing more than blow thick gooey unctuous fog over everything and keep this issue going for as long as you want it to.
It ill behoves you, sir, and that is the stark truth.
I also know that I am far from alone in this view.
Several of the most highly-respected posters here have expressed the same opinion in private.
It would be nice, and probably a very good move, if one or two of them could break their habit of silence and politely support me here.
But I suspect they will choose not to, for reasons of their own.
Be that as it may. I feel sure your rather noisier friends will keep things pretty much as they are.
I'm supposed to avoid stress if I ever want to be able to get out of the house again - so I am taking myself out of this place.
Now huff and waffle and humph and harrumphhh and carp and moan as pompously as you like.
You obviously just love this kind of thing, don't you. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 12:14 pm | | Wow, I'd suggest anyone who has been so obviously sick for such a long time should never have subjected themselves to this particular hobby in the first place.
Please take things much easier in future Karoline, you are making me very worried for your well-being. Really.
And I apologise for the 'nasty snidery' you have detected in my posts. Even though there was none intended.
All the best.
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 12:32 pm | | Karoline:- You are entitled to your opinions, as I am entitled to mine, and for what it's worth I detest 'this kind of thing' with a passion you would not believe. But that's neither here nor there and you probably don't believe me anyway. As for your version of what was going on here and what you were doing, the posts are available for anyone interested to look at and they can draw their own conclusions. There seems no reason for me to try again to explain things like why there is a difference between Keith Skinner promoting his own theory and Keith Skinner asking someone to examine their theory. I have done the best I can to explain myself and make myself clear.
I am extremely sorry to learn that you have been in ill-health. Having been seriously unwell myself for most of last year, I have every sympathy for you and sincerly hope that you are on the road to a full recovery. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 01:21 pm | | Hello Everyone.
Caz--The letter you quote from Alan Gray is interesting and possibly important, but it was written nearly two years after Michael Barrett made the first of his confessions (5 January 1995) describing how he bought the diary. Since so much time had elapsed, is it not possible that Barrett merely could no longer come up with proof of the purchase? Keith Skinner made reference to the possibility that the auctioneers Oathwaite & Litherland have denied that Barrett bought such an album, and maybe he could post further deatils here?
Karoline, Jill, & Everyone--Over the past six or seven months I've tried to be a disinterested jurist to the saga of this Maybrick Diary, and have tried to be polite to people on every side and listen to their points. I know I'm not one of the highly respected posters that Karoline is referring to, but, in fairness, I feel like I should give her main argument some support here. I can't see where the pro-Anne camp has come up with much of any objective facts to support their claims that the diary is an old forgery. Steve's letter from Australia is highly reminiscent of that other dubious Australian production "The East End Murderer-I Knew Him" by Druitt, Drewett, or Drewery from Koo-Wee-Rup. Since Anne herself doesn't remember the incident and even seems to question it, I don't think it has any relevance. If there is other evidence to back-up Anne's story, I haven't seen it posted at this site. I mean no disrespect to anyone (I'm a fan of Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts) but in looking objectively at these facts, I have to say that I am definitely sliding over to the Birchwood and Harris view of things. And I feel that Mr. Triola's curious rant should not have been posted on these boards.
Meanwhile, I'd be interested in hearing responses to O Costly Intercourse of Death and Poste House issues that Barrett raised in his affidavit, if anyone wishes to tackle them.
Best regards. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 01:29 pm | | There are of course some things that we would like to know concerning the Steve Powell e-mails. As Melvin says, how about the e-mails that "seemed increasingly extraordinary in their detail." If we're to discus the possibility of the diary being in the Graham family pre 1990 then we need to know more information, not just Mrs. Harrison's opinion about them. The implication is that Andy Aliffe had some prior correspondence with Steve. Is that true? Certainly there doesn't seem to be an improper motive on Mr. Powell's behalf to start this story; he wouldn't profit from it. Where is David Dalton? Australia or the UK? (There are 177 David Daltons registered to vote in the UK including three in Liverpool.) Was "The Mint" prominent enough to be listed in Australian pop archives?
Did Mr. Powell post his comments on the 27th June in answer to my comments of the 13th June or Keith Skinner's of the 15th.
All very mysterious. I do hope however that permission was got from Mr. Powell to post his (presumably) private email to Andy Aliffe on a public board? And if no permission was given then presumably there would be no problem in posting all Mr. Powell's private messages in this place.
Lastly, let me say that I agree with R.J. Palmer's comments and he has a lot to offer all of us in matters diary and Druitt. Let us now concentrate on working out how to prove or disprove the truth of the diary.
Peter |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 02:14 pm | | | Hear , hear. And I agree too , RJP is an excellent poster. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 03:34 pm | | Dear Ms. De Schrijver,
I respect your right to your opinion.
I've come to appreciate your calm and friendly personality. Your posts are always insightful and enthusiastic, but mostly, I respect your passion for the subject matter. You have an honest desire to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper, and its attending subplots.
Like you, I am also interested in the solution to the Whitechaple murders, and to some extent,the mystery surrounding the Maybrick Diary. And like you, I'm not willing to condone abusive behavior, no matter how it is disguised. Seemingly harmless anonymous postings, have in the past, been the harbinger of a deeper abuse to come. Do you recall the reign of terror that existed last summer culminating with the advent of Validictor? It started innocently enough, just like Dear Diary, but it ended in the trading of vicious assaults across the cyber no-mans-land that the casebook had become. I don't believe these personality clashes belong here, do you? I'm sure you'll agree, that they should be attended to privately.
We share the same feelings regarding this kind of conduct; we diverge on the tactics that should be applied to counter anonymous abuse.
It has been my experience that the best way to handle the problem is to fight fire, with fire. Personally, I like to fan my blaze considerably hotter, it tends to end the anonymous pyromania in quick fashion. Perhaps, as you say, it is Machiavellian of me to do so, but if you go back through the archives you will see that I did not initiate this confrontation, I reacted to it.
You conclude with the statement that the question of right and wrong, as it regards the Maybrick Diary, has yet to be decided, and I feel your statement has merit. I have concluded that anonymous posts that take a persons words out of context, and twists them for a malicious purpose, have no merit.
I hope this explains the reasoning that motivates my reaction; furthermore, if you ever find yourself a victim of abuse in this venue, I would do the same for you.
To me, it is a matter of right and wrong. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 03:41 pm | | Chris -
I may be quite wrong (as any regular poster to the
boards knows, I often am), but I do not recall
that we were offered a "facsimile" of the Maybrick
Diary for the US Convention. I know that we were
offered copies of the Harrison book for sale, but
those never arrived. Did you hear something I did
not?
RJ - the "Poste House" matter was also addressed
in print by Roger Wilkes in a short essay (Who
Was JTR) in the 1995 book "Who WAS JTR?: A
Collection of Present-Day Theories and
Observations," and was written prior to Mike
Barret's confessions. I can send you a copy if
you wish.
And now, having said that. . .the remainder of
this post is difficult for me to write. I have
not been keeping up with the "Diary" boards over
the last day or two (and have been keeping away
after foolishly responding to a silly post
designed to put the wind up me on another board),
but have returned to find the old game of
anonymous posters - which I think we all had hoped
was dead as a doornail - returning. I must
confess that I do not see the point in "Dear
Diary's" posts - was it to show that Paul has
previously made statements that seem to support
the Diary and is now (depending on your view)
engaged in changing his mind or apparently trying
to wiggle his way out? Is it to stir up bad
feeling? Is it sheer cussedness? I don't know.
I do see, however, that this whole affair has
affected my friend Karoline, and I find this sad.
For that reason, I wish to support her as well as
make a few points of my own.
Veteran posters will remember a time when a
particularly nasty set of posts attacking
Karoline, Paul and many others were au courant
here. There were suspicions about their origins,
but nothing proven. The result, however, was a
great deal of bad blood and curiosities about
motives, and a lingering wonderment as to whether
certain people might be subjected to nastiness
when they returned to the boards.
And so to the Diary. There has been a great deal
of discussion here; most of it over my head, which
is why I do not generally post here. I will
confess that in the recent debate between Karoline
and Paul, each side has been making some
interesting points which I, as a layman, agree
with. There also seems to be a misunderstanding
of positions on both sides, but to be honest, I
cannot see where the differences are in method,
only in perceived motivation (my ignorance and/or
naive foolishness showing through, perhaps).
My feeling with the Diary has always been the
same. It is a forgery. I think Melvin Harris has
put forth the most probable sources for its
content. But for every swat that removes a Diary
prop, another board seems to emerge to take its
place - if the "Poste House" doesn't exist in
Liverpool, maybe it refers to another PH. If the
Diary writing does not match Maybrick's hand or
Mike's or Anne's, then perhaps it's Tony
Devereaux, and why don't we run writing tests on
the whole circle of forgers and friends. I
sympathise with those who believe the diary is a
post-1987 forgery, but appreciate a lot of it has
turned into choosing whatever side of the argument
fits you best (after all, when Keith asked me why
I believed it was a forgery, I could offer him
little beyond the impotent argument that it
doesn't "feel" right!).
I do not believe this applies to most posters
here. I think that Karoline, Paul, Caz, Melvin,
Keith, RJ, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all aver
sincerely that they are trying to solve the Diary
conundrum as best they know how. Intemperate
posts such as that of June 30, 3.17am, or posts
merely throwing back someone's words at them with
no rhyme or reason are only going to sow distrust,
distate and dislike (even hate) in a field far too
burdened with it already.
I have friends on "both sides of the aisle," so to
speak, and I find I must choose my words here with
care so as not to anger any more than I may
already have. It is not my place to speculate on
the motivations of posters (and in any event, I
would not do so in a public area), and I would
like to think the best of all involved.
In any event, to paraphrase Sir Robert Anderson, I
may have said here either too much or too little.
I apologise for the latter part of this post, if
it is of no interest or a source of irritation.
Karoline has been a valued, thought-provoking and
endlessly fascinating poster since the early days
on these boards, and we would be the poorer
without her. I am pleased and honoured to call
her a friend (as I am honoured to have other
friends here), and hope sincerely that all
involved may step back for a moment, take a deep
breath and return to the fray wielding only logic
as a weapon.
With sincere apologies for the length and
impenetrability of this post,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 05:37 pm | | Christopher-Michael--
Well said. Your dignity and calm reason is an example to us all. Thanks for the citation and offer of the Wilkes essay; I'll try to chase it down.
Wishing everyone a great week-end, and those up north an especially nice Canada Day.
RJP |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 06:30 pm | | YET MORE TELLING FACTS!.
For a while I thought that Mr Triola was well-meaning, now he has revealed himself as a pretty slimy creature. His post reached the all-time low for this board. It is the most vile of any that has been concocted and I do expect Paul Begg to denounce it and repudiate it. And all that rubbish about slander! The man doesn't even know the difference between libel and slander. And since when has a mere reminder of past statements been actionable?
But slime apart, let me state that I did not declare the Diary a fake before I saw it. This is a real libel cooked up by Feldman. What I did say was that the chances of it being genuine were slim. And that verdict arose from the fact that I knew more about Ripper fakes than anyone else (See my posting on McCormick)
And I have never believed that Mike faked it or that Anne faked it. Their lies simply concern provenance. Their roles were simply as placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.
That is all I am prepared to say, except to record that an investigation was carried out in Liverpool in 1993-4 by a daily paper (Not in the Murdoch Group). That paper, as an act of courtesy, made their discoveries known to me. But they decided to sit on their material until there were fresh developments. They had the talked-about film in mind. I had supplied their reporters with some documents, but I was not paid by them. Even so, I stay silent because I endorse the professional code that we both operate under.
The quote from Alan Gray's letter to Barrett has now to be put in its true context. Mike was angry because he believed he was being denied all the money due to him. He produced letters showing that on 27th September 1994 his solicitors were told that £12,000 was due from Feldman for film rights. A further letter (from Robert Smith) showed that New Line Cinema had paid £70,000 in December 1994. He next stated that he had been warned that his loud mouth would kill off the goose that laid the traditional nuggets. He said that he wanted to say more, but wanted the money much more. It was then that Alan Gray made enquiries and found a newspaper that would pay for a good story. This, he told Mike, would partly compensate him for any money he might lose. But the sum on offer was not big enough for Mike, who opted to keep on receiving Royalties, and there the matter ended.
As for the 'Poste House' fiasco, Roger Wilkes warned Shirley Harrison about this BEFORE her book was written, but no mention was made of this when her book appeared. As for that obscure poem, Mike stated (to me) that when Devereux and his pals were composing the Diary he (Mike) threw in a few tit-bits and among them was the opening line of this verse. I have given more details in my interview in 'Ripper Notes', but for those who have not seen that issue, here is the important section:-
"It shows that the fakers knew this very obscure poem. The book it appears in is Volume Two of the 'Sphere History of Literature'. Mike Barrett first claimed that he made the text known to Tony Devereux because "It was a good one to use. It was about death and sex [intercourse], like the Ripper." Mike also claimed that the book just fell open at that poem. This does not mean that Mike wrote the Diary, but my examination of his copy of the book proves that he is right on one score: the book DOES FALL OPEN at the right page. The reason for that is simple. The copy is a substandard one with binding defects on pages 128, 112 and 183-4. The defects on the linked pages 183 and 184 biases the volume to open up on those pages and at the foot of page 184 are four lines of verse; the only such lines on that page. They open: "O costly intercourse/Of deaths, & worse,/Divided loves (etc). The Diary entry is a slight variant of the first five words. Five words that give the game away!"
Let me make it clear that some people who post anonymously do so because they don't wish to be bombarded with offensive phone calls or offensive emails. All sane people will recognise that it is the message that counts not the messenger. Now can we have some common sense please! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 06:44 pm | | Thank you, Mr Harris, for the Roger Wilkes note. I was unaware he had made this information available before the publication of the Diary, and now (like Swanson), I must make a note of it in my book.
I should make it clear I have no animus against anonymous posters per se; only when the shield of disguise allows bile and slander to run free. I quite appreciate that many people have no wish to be bothered beyond the confines of these boards, and would not require them to give up their privacy.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 09:28 pm | | Hi CMD:
Indeed in addition to the possibility of us selling the new edition of Shirley's book at the convention (though unfortunately the shipment arrived after the convention!) someone--Harrison, Feldman, Montgomery, Smith, whomever--offered to let us send a facsimile copy of the Diary for display for the interest of the conventioneers at Park Ridge in lieu of us being able to get one of the Diary authors in the flesh. Unfortunately I think the e-mail that arrived in my name offering to send us the facsimile may have been on an e-mail service I was using that has gone defunct on me so I cannot trace who made the offer.
Chris |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 10:55 pm | | Mr. Harris,
Slime, really. I believe that when it comes to slime, Mr. Harris, you are an expert.
Tell me sir, how little courage does it take to post "reminders of past statements" hidden away in the shadows like a thief. It must indeed take very little, because the act came so easily for you. If the message is the thing, as you say, why not stand up like a man and tell it from behind a face that has confidence in the words.
You seek an advantage in your anonymity, Mr. Harris; you hide because you are afraid.
In your own words, you say you wish to avoid "bombardment by e-mails, and phone calls". Why would you be "bombarded" with anything at all if what you had to say had merit?
The fact that you bring "past statements" back into the debate, Mr. Harris, is an attempt to take Paul's words out of context and belittle him, and question his credibility. And to top it all off, you want to do this without any recrimination, as if Harris's word is law: There will be no debating the proclamation, the great and powerful Oz has spoken. Well, Mr. Harris says he wants to use my words to impugn my reputation, I am so honored to be the target of your sanctimonious rancor; is this what you expect your victims to say Mr. Harris? You want them to sit back and enjoy a good lambasting, is that it?
" All sane people know it is the message, and not the messenger" what a convenient quote you have there Validictor, do you have one to cover every occasion where an excuse is necessary to make your cowardice palatable, even to yourself?
You don't seem be able to understand that if the message is the product of your mind and your hand, you, and that message are one and the same. If as Dear Diary, and Validictor you brought us Mr. Di Grazia's thoughts, then you are just a messenger boy, but as Dear Diary, Mr. Harris, you bring us your thoughts, and your vision and you wish to escape responsibility for both by hiding behind a mask, and then you have the nerve to equated that act of cowardice with a general definition of sanity. Mr. Harris, if that twisted piece of logic were true, the asylum would certainly be in the hands of the inmates.
I am not surprised to see that the majority of your supporters on this forum, either naturally or by choice, reflect your condescending, holier then thou attitude in their personal characters. Birds of a feather do flock together, now there is an apropos cliché that you haven't used yet.
In your customary self-righteous sermon, you afforded me a possible saving grace with your comment of my initial well meaning. Unlike yourself, I never gave you any credit for being anything other then a mean spirited bag of hot air. You may have all your facts right, Dear Diary, and you may very well have a regiment of excellent connections, but it doesn't change the fact that when you are afraid to take the consequence for your actions or words, you are a coward. And when you seek to harm someone's reputation by innuendo, without affording him a chance to address his accuser, you are deceitful.
I am elated my reference to bed wetting struck a cord, and drew you out into the open Mr. Harris, Dear Diary, Validictor or whatever shield you need to use to make up for your lack of courage. If anything can be categorized as vile, and labeled as the " all time low", in this forum, it is your brand of hypocrisy.
What is your point in bringing Paul's "past statements" into the picture, Mr. Diary?
What are you trying to say, and how does making Paul accountable for his past statements affect your point?
And lastly, why should Paul Begg be accountable for his words, and you unaccountable for yours Mr. Melvin "Dear Diary" Harris?
When you are willing to act like a man, you can start by admitting the truth, and then by signing your name to all your posts.
JOSEPH TRIOLA JR. |
Author: Steve Powell
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 02:40 am | | To all at the casebook.
Thankyou Birchwood, (call me steve and I'll call
you peter)
I shall indeed answer any and all questions put to
me,without fear or favour.
What do I stand to get out of this?...the truth.
All here on the casebook,with all their
differances,are very much the same.We want to
know.At first I thought you all were just lookin'
for a fight or someone to winge to.
I understand now,that you are mostly united.
Unity will solve this matter of the diary.So argue
on...
I am,at the present,writing the details of my
'Fiery Meeting' with Anne,for all of you.
I want you guys to pull it to pieces if you can.
When you read my report,you may then understand
why I have remembered the things I have.
I contacted Andy Ailiffe because I wanted to
contact Paul Feldman.
Once again,my motive is the truth and nuthin' but.
David is living in Sydney,I'll give you his number
and others,if you or anyone else here plan to do
some serious research.
I told Shirley Harrison that I would not talk to
David or his family,until she had done so,so as
not to influence his memory.
he gave me a call,which was answered by my
daughter but I did not speak to him and have still
not.He must think I'm a 'right royal...'
(Sorry Dave,You'll know soon enough about it all.)
My only contact with my past friends is the old
Roadie Colin,a great guy and I can trust him.
I have told him about the incident with Anne and
asked for his help in contacting the others.he is
on the case and he tells me his son is a policeman
who may be able to help.
The Mint had a few records out while I was with
them.TV,Mags, etc. After about five years,I got
fed-up playing the same music night after night.
We recorded for 'Southern Music in Sydney'.
I then managed to score a recording contract on my
own with 'J.Albert & Sons Music Publishers' of
Sydney.A solo album 'Celestial madness' was
released under my name.That was 1975.
I was then offered another recording contract with
'ATV / Northern Songs'.There I worked with a band
called 'Tanks' with various releases and TV stuff.
I then went deaf and developed cancer and they
gave me three-months to live! (Geeze,It sounds
like our mate Mike B.)
Anyway,I survived and had nearly forgotten about
the Anne I had met,that is until I read Feldmans
book and one by one,the memories floated up.
I posted my comments on you peter and also Keith
Skinner,I knew keith had done the recent Interview
with Anne and I wondered why you were coping the
stick from him,also I wanted to know how you got
your info,It made me feel like a mushroom,you
know,In the dark.Besides that,it was time.
It's 7 in the morning here in Sunny Queensland and
I have'nt been to sleep yet,I have spent many
sleepless nights over the last year or so trying
to give you all an honest and true account of the
meeting with Anne and her story.
I did not mind Shirley posting the e-mail and you
are welcome to read and copy all of them,if you
wish.However,as Abberline did,I kept some back in
the initial e-mails,until I knew I was right.
Stephen powell.
1-7- |
Author: Dear Diary
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 04:07 am | | Well, we thought that the fact that we were retiring from this board would end the flood of venom from Mr Begg and his supporters. Sadly we were wrong. For in their abusive responses they have heaped their bile upon innocent parties.
Again, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the main culprit is the unpleasant Mr Triola. Sadly you are way off beam Mr Triola, for we are not Melvin Harris, nor do we write on his behalf. We merely write in the hope that some common sense may prevail and that Mr Begg's twisting and perverse scheme to keep all things diary alive as long as there is mileage to be squeezed out of the subject may be seen for what it is. Not only has he severely dented his once respectable reputation, he has surely badly affected his new found status as editor of the fanzine Ripperologist. As we have seen, it is not only us, but the more sensible posters here also, who see through his dismal ploy. And how, Mr Triola, can merely repeating his past statements verbatim, be seen as twisting his words?
It is also quite amazing to see that there always remain a few gullible ones, such as Mr T and Mrs M, who seem happy to be dragged into this perverse scheme. Do they like reading their own words? And believe us, this is a small, introverted world here in cyberland on these boards. The diary is debated nowhere in the real world for it lost its credibilty, as did its supporters, many years ago. It seems that on these pages, and those of his own fanzine, Mr Begg finds the only forum to perpetuate this nonsense. And the diary supporters think it is wonderful when they can bamboozle a poor uninformed person, such as Prof. Rubinstein, to perpetuate their nonsense. And why this sudden revival of diary nonsense. Well, really, we are all able to see that it amazingly coincides with news of a revival in the movie interest. We are not all blind and stupid Mr Begg. It has even drawn Mrs Harrison back out of her lair.
So for those who seek truth, and the real status of the so-called 'Jack the Ripper diary' we would recommend you all to the most illuminating, and honest, posts of Mr Harris.
And is it not an amazing fact that after a long absence Mr Begg returns to these boards and immediately resumes his 'diary apologist' stance, and proceeds to stoke up a further pointless debate, very similar to past pointless debates, on a subject that has done nothing to advance our knowledge, nor to achieve anything here but acrimony. When it comes to drivel and evasive tactics Mr Begg is without peer. His posts always leave him with an 'out,' an escape route, "I'm not saying that I think the diary is genuine," or "I'm not saying that I think the diary is an old forgery," are typical. What the hell is he saying?
He is also a master of the analogous tale, the witty quip, and the "I never said..." stance. He must realise that his verbal gymnastics not only confuse the ill-informed, bamboozle the innocent, and annoy the intelligent, they also show him for what he is. The true master of prevarication. So now Mr Begg, you have something, albeit the truth, for you to get your teeth into. See this as provocative if you wish, we are all tired of your silly little games. For it is an amazing fact that you perceived your own verbatim past statements as provocative.
So all you sad acolytes, pour out your venom and filth, it will cut no ice with us. And we suggest that Mr Triola retires to the school playground where his childish cant is most appropriate. Mr Begg is big in the charm stakes, but whatever you do don't upset him, for the real face of Mr Begg will then be seen. And pontificate no more Mr Begg, you are right, we are sick of your nonsense, and we certainly do not support you. We must be off, we have our toys to play with. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 05:48 am | | R.J. Palmer:- This whole row, as I explain to CMD below, has erupted in the main because the idea of the 'diary' being an old forgery is not under discussion. So, to paraphrase a rather nice scene from Yes, Prime Minister, forget the idea, delete it, expunge it, eradicate it, dispose of it, get rid of it! The question is, if the 'diary' is a modern forgery, who forged it?
CMD:- If there is a school of thought that I am changing my mind or wriggling out of something, then I'm afraid the school of thought is wrong, whichever point of view is adopted. I have never believed that the 'diary' is genuine or that it is an old forgery. I have simply advanced the latter as a possibility which should be considered because it focused questions more precisely. To illustrate my point, when the handwriting didn't indicate that the diarist was educated in the mid-1800s, as Maybrick would have been, some peope took this as proof of a modern forgery. Nobody asked when the handwriting did suggest the diarist was schooled. One suggestion, I recall, was in the 20s or 30s. (which, of course, moved the focus of authorship from Mike and Ann, but that's another issue). In short, I am not changing my mind about anything.
What I am doing is supporting Keith attempt to look at the theory that Mike and Ann wrote the 'diary' for financial gain and I am endorsing his question: "if Mike and Ann forged the 'diary', which of them penned it?'
Now, why has this simple question generated such hostility? Because that is what this is all about. It isn't about the old forgeryists presenting their evidence, it isn't about Ann's life in Australia, it isn't about any wild Feldman idea, it isn't about methodology. It is simply about asking someone to comment sensibly and enlighteningly on how their theory is effected by the handwriting being neither Mike's or Ann's.
And was it right to ask that question? Well, Melvin Harris seems to be telling us that he's party to privileged information that shows that the 'diary' was not forged by Mike and Ann or even conceived by them, but that they were merely 'the placers, or handlers, of a document forged by others.' So, if Melvin's statement is true, then Mike and Ann were the patsies of people like, say, Deveraux and Kane. So the 'oh so obvious it must be right' theory that Mike and Ann forged it between them for financial gain isn't right after all! So the handwriting isn't theirs (am I relieved that I didn't spend money on a handwriting analysis!). So Mike maybe genuinely was ignorant of almost everything! So the questions posed by Keith a few weeks back were posed for good reasons, his assessment was spot on - or, if not spot on, were moving close to the truth. So maybe there was methodology in the madness after all!
Now, that's what this is all about.
Melvin:- I don't know how closely you follow theses message boards, but a lot of harm has been done by anonymous posters and there is a general agreement among everyone here that they are not wanted. A pseudonymous poster with a fair and properly expressed message might be acceptable, but a pseudonymous poster like 'Dear Diary' most certainly isn't. I hope 'Dear Diary' wasn't you because that idea was ill-conceived and stupid and designed specifically to provoke the responses it did. Your message not the messenger statement therefore doesn't hold water. And just so you know, I do not condone Joseph's remarks. I deplore them. But I understand them, I can fully comprehend the depth of feeling that made him express himself that way, and I can appreciate the purpose he had in mind. But, as I say, what Joseph did was exactly what 'Dear Diary' wanted him to do.
Stephen:- Welcome. I think everyone, no one more than Ann, will welcome any enlightenment you can shed on this episode. |
|
|
|
|
