|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 28, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Maybrick/Jack's watch?:
Archive through April 28, 1999
Author: Ashling
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 04:49 am |        | Hi y'all.
BOB H: Regarding Barnett saying "we" opened the door through the broken window ---
1) As you know, after Joe moved out, he came to see Mary almost every day. It's not too far-fetched to think that on some of those days - he ran into her on the street or in a pub - walked her home and they ("we") opened the door together.
2. Where is the original source of that statement by Barnett? It's not in the Daily Telegraph's reporting of the inquest, as given on the Caseboard.
Y'all have an interesting discussion going ... Can't comment yet - still reading The Diary.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Caz
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 06:22 am | | Yeah Ashling! See my post to you on the MJK (FM on wall) board.
Feeling a bit sad today for Chelsea who got beat by Real Mallorca last night in their rematch in Palma. They really should have socked it to 'em when they had the chance at Stamford Bridge, their home ground. Instead Chelsea got the old kick in the Balearics (grin).
Good news though. I got a parcel from Georgia, also postmarked Chelsea, and...yippee! It contains my long-awaited 'Passengers To America' book, containing approx. 18,000 names of people who sailed from East to West from....oh shi*, they've sent me the wrong sodding dates! Back to the drawing board. What a mistaka to maka! If anyone wants this bloody book (from the passengers of the May Flower, 1620, to about 1830), let me know. I did promise it to Keith Skinner when I'd had a look, but if he doesn't want it...
Hi Paul!
Hope you are okay.
Can you ask Keith for me?
(This is not gonna be one of my better days, wry smile.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 07:22 am | | Dear Paul
Do you have the transcript of the information given by Billy Graham? I would be interested to see it because I think it's important to acertain exactly what he was referring to, was it the book or was it the diary?
For example I can hold up a book and show it to you and then give it to a third party. Let us say this book is eventually shown to be the diary of Queen Victoria. However unless you have read the book and confirmed its contents you cannot say whether it is a diary or just a book.
From what I understand Billy says he didn't read the contents, if this is so his provenence is worthless.
If he did read the book, and understood it to be the diary of JTR, I am amazed that he thought it of little value.
For Billy Grahams evidence to be of value the transcript must show that he examined the book, understood the contents to be the (supposed) diary of JTR and that he passed it on. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:16 am | | Bob:
I too would clamour for a sight of transcripts of Billy Graham's interviews but I wonder firstly: are they the ones transcribed by his daughter Ann and secondly, if they are, are they not obviously tainted, at least until tapes and transcript can be put together?
My understanding of the section of transcript printed in Feldy's book is that the diary is not independently mentioned by Billy until Keith prompts him. In this important reply there are two sections marked "not audible:" both when Billy is talking about a tin box. This might be considered suspicious especially as later in the conversation there's another "not audible" when he is also talking about a box.
Billy says he looked at "this book and I just seen very small print and I just put it down; didn't want to know."
Now the millions who have seen the reproduced diary must know that a/ there is no print - it's all handwritten and b/ it's not "small." These two pints tell me that Billy wasn't talking about "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," he hadn't seen the original and was in fact talking about something completely different. I suggest that from these points alone, the chain of supposed provenance fails completely.
Peter. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:21 am | | Sorry, two points not pints. Tomorrow I shall check the US Passenger Ship indices at NLW Aberystwyth but I have the feeling they don't go up much further than the 1860's. They are a run of published books now up to around 10 volumes and can be consulted at the BM, London and the Society of Genealogists plus the PRO at Kew.
Peter. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 12:46 pm | | The PRO at Kew only has lists of passengers coming FROM the US TO the UK, and, would you believe it, the 1888/9 ones are not to be found anywhere! I got a good look at the lists for some dates in 1891/2 however. Hmmmm, more interesting than revealing, they turned out to be.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 03:13 am | | Hi Bob
Yes, I have both the transcript and the tape of the meeting. However, I wasn't trying to suggest that Billy's statements prove the provenance of the "Diary", only remarking in response to your comments (I was saying that a signed legal document would be nice but unlikely to be of greater worth than the tapes and transcript - if Billy was prepared to lie then he would have lied in a signed affadavit just as he lied verbally. After all, he was and knew he was terminally ill and if his motive in lying was to protect Anne, then he had nothing to lose by lying in any form).
I suspect that a more fritful line of inquiry might be to ask why Anne told this story in the first place. The scenario is that Feldy was pestering lots of Anne's family and friends and Anne wanted to stop him. There was a very long and acrimonious telephone conversation, the result of which was a meeting at which Anne told her story. Anne's behaviour may therefore be seen as highly charitable, but also very stupid if she had in fact forged or been party to forging the document. Hitherto she was clear of any complicity and could have continued to deny any involvement, yet now by her own actions she had focused attention on herself and her terminalyy-ill father. Some might argue that Anne wouldn't be so stupid to do this if her story was untrue. Others might argue that Anne possesses such a grand generosity of spirit that focussing the finger of guilt on herself and risking prosecution for goodness knows what was a mere trifle when compared to deflecting attention from others. |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 05:23 am | | Paul - would it be possible for an 'independent' person to hear the tape and make and independent transcript thereof?
K. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 06:03 am | | Hi Karoline
I'm not sure. I don't suppose that there would be any problem, but the tape isn't mine (in the sense that I'd feel comfortable about making it available without permission to do so). I have every reason to believe that the existing transcript, which was done by Martine Rooney, was done honestly and fairly and I have no doubts whatsoever that any discrepancy between the tape and the transcript picked up by Keith Skinner would have been made known. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 07:06 am | | Hi, Peter and Paul:
The upshot is that the statements made by the terminally ill Billy Graham are as unsatisfactory as the story that the diary passed through the hands of Tony Devereaux, who also died. I am not suggesting a conspiracy here, I am just stating facts. From the transcript in Feldman's book it is evident that Feldman is trying to establish some link with the Maybricks, whatever it may turn out to be. Billy Graham seems as if he is being badgered by Feldman to admit a link with Florence Maybrick through Feldman's own linking Florence Maybrick's use of the name "Graham" with Billy and Anne Graham. Billy, as I interpret it, is reluctantly made to agree that there may be some connection. This is most unsatisfactory since this so-called "confession" does not any more establish a provenance for the diary than does the original posited origination of the diary with Devereaux.
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 07:36 am | | Hi
Billy certainly wasn't badgered into making a connection. Not only did he agree to the meeting with Feldman, he advanced the connection of his own volition when he suggested that Florence was his grandmother. Feldman was manifestly astonished by the statement, which he regretably but understandably grasped with more enthusiasm than was prudent, but he isn't a professional interviewer.
There is a considerable difference between Tony Devereux and Billy Graham in that the former was dead before the "Diary" was made public and therefore couldn't be interviewed. Billy Graham, of course, was alive and was interviewed several times. Those present thought his manner and the things he said had a ring of truth. And, of course, although he was terminally ill, nobody knew when he would die.
Billy Graham's story does not prove the provenance of the document, but how many of us could prove the provenance of many of the documents passed down through our families? The documents, photos or whatever have simply been there, in a drawer or cupboard or in an old suitcase in the attic. Billy's story proves nothing, but if it is true.... |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Hi, Paul:
Yes, perhaps "badgered" is too strong a term, because as you point out, the interviewers (Keith Skinner and Paul H. Feldman) did not pressure Graham unduly, as stated by Feldman in his book, when he says, "We were not going to push any point and allowed Billy to dictate the conversation." (Hardback first edition of "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter," p. 175).
However, it is also clear that Billy Graham was not totally comfortable during the interview -- for after quoting from the transcript Graham's recollection of hearing during his childhood that Florence Maybrick had an illegitimate child, Feldman writes, "Although Billy said 'yes, yes' [that this was something he heard during his childhood] he said it without conviction. He wanted to move away from the subject." (Ibid.)
It seems to me that Billy Graham was a chap who knew little about not too much, and that he is partly repeating gossip he heard about the Maybricks that was circulating in Liverpool, not inside information that came through his family.
Paul, I do not think you are entirely right that Billy Graham was the first to suggest a connection between his own family and Florence Maybrick. According to the somewhat nebulous wording of Feldman's book while, yes, the connection was assented to by Billy Graham, the link had earlier been made by Mike Barrett suggesting it to Feldman.
To quote several other passages from Feldman's book:
"The next time Mike and I spoke, he ended the conversation by screaming, 'Find Anne and ask her to swear on Caroline's life that she is not a Maybrick.'. . . I was intrigued. The diary was in Mike's possession and recently he had suggested that there could be a connection to Anne through James Maybrick, or through Florence and a prison warder. . . . Subtlety no longer played a part in Mike's hints. Was Anne now an illegitimate Maybrick?" (p. 141).
"Billy Graham was born in 1913. . . . Billy's father William was apparently the illegitimate son of Florence. . . ." (p. 177).
"In the meantime, Anne tracked down 'Auntie Mary.' . . . In all probability, Mary was the granddaughter of Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, the wife of Jack the Ripper." (p. 141).
The supposed connection with Florence Maybrick is continued in the new book by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas, "The Last Victim. . .," where Anne Graham states in the Introduction:
"If it is possible to choose one's ancestors I don't think the wife of Jack the Ripper and the woman convicted for his murder would have been my first preference!" (p. xv)
"During [the] meeting [with Paul Feldman] my father appeared to suggest that the reason for the journal's existence in our family was that his father was the illegitimate son of Florence Maybrick, born when she was an unmarried teenager." (p. xvii)
[Editor's note: Is this right? I don't see anywhere in Feldman's book where Billy Graham outright says Mrs. Maybrick was his grandmother, though Feldman's wording implies it! C.T.G.]
"Did Florence have an illegitimate child in Hartlepool and pass him on to another family to raise? If she had was that child my grandfather? Frankly, I had been ignorant of this story before that day and I am still not completely convinced. However, if it is true it could mean that Florence Maybrick was my great-grandmother." (p. xviii)
Heady stuff, enough to make a reader's head spin. But what does it all mean? This line of thought "appears" to give a tenuous link to the Maybricks but it is hardly proof of any provenance for the diary; rather it is something less than hearsay. To use a U.S. expression, with which Florence Elizabeth Chandler Maybrick would have been familiar: It does not amount to a hill of beans.
I continue to say that the pro-Diary camp build their case on shaky and circumstantial evidence which damages rather than supports their claims to genuineness of the diary. Paul, I know you are personally caught in the middle in this controversy, but I thought we ought to be clear what the so-called claims are for the connection between Anne Graham, Billy Graham, and Florence Maybrick.
Chris George |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 12:21 pm | | Paul -
first - all best wishes for a speedy recovery, and apologies for the incredible rudeness of not saying so before.
I appreciate all the sentiments issued on both sides here. But I think a point to note is that there are SO MANY good opinions, and SO LITTLE incontrovertible evidence.
If we could obtain the tape and produce a second and clearly independent transcript, then this would be at least one question answered.
We would have a definitive version of what Mr. Graham actually said.
So - do you think you could ask - or maybe authorise someone else to ask, if you're not up to it yet - permission to loan the tape to someone here who has no vested interest in either side of the debate, and who might be willing to make such a transcript?
K |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 12:22 pm | | Everybody:
" he advanced the connection of his own volition when he suggested that Florence was his grandmother" Going completely by the transcript printed in Feldy's book, it's clear that Feldman introduced Flories name into the conversation by reading to Billy from "This Friendless Lady" concerning Florie's brief adoption of the Graham name after her release. Billy is surprised when he's told that Florie adopted that name: "Did she?" he says. There's a confused point where he talks of "being her son-my father-being Maybrick's son..." where the obvious interpretation is that he's supposing his father to be James Maybrick's son. He then talks about someone being "fifteen when she had him." Florie was 19 when William Graham was born in Hartlepool; a town she was never known to be in. Billy then says: "she was trying to claim ...that my dad was her son?" The penny now has to drop for us all. Billy never said that Florie was his grandmother; the transcript is confused and the man may be talking about other people. The implication is that he was taken by surprise by Feldy, I do suspect one piece in the transcript of leading us in the right direction when Billy says: "...the Maybrick one had a child before she married him" obviously referring to James' illegitimate children and confirming that to an extent, Billy had been primed about the Maybrick case at some time. Interestingly his daughter apears angry about this but Billy is adamant: "I'm sure they have!" (told me that.)
And was Billy interviewed several times? If every interview was taped, we deserve to hear those tapes and whoever controls those tapes should give permission for an independent person to transcribe them otherwise there will always be doubt about this aspect of the case. Lastly, I'm glad to hear that Ann Graham didn't transcribe this particular tape but I would draw your attention to a statement by Keith Skinner: "Originally Martine (Paul's Secretary{Feldy}) was transcribing the taped interviews but this was proving difficult for her...As a result the few tapes she managed to transcribe were incomplete and inadequate."
Peter. |
Author: J.V.Smith jr.
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 06:06 pm | | From an Idiot:I just purchased a book that I believe was published in 1993,in which a dairy was found that was purportted to be that of
Jack the Ripper's.
I consummed this book in the better part of a day and one-half,so I thought I would turn my search to the WWW.
Have there been more books written since the Diary of Jack the Ripper(it seem so,and if so what are the tittles that pertain to James Maybrick?)
A Interested party. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 06:52 pm | | Greetings, J. V. Smith, Jr., and welcome to the site. We hope you get as much enjoyment out of the Casebook as the rest of us do.
Both Shirley Harrison's original 1993 "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" and Paul H. Feldman's 1997 supportive book, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter" are both now available in updated editions.
You may also be interested to know that Casebook Productions, Inc., is planning coverage of the diary and other aspects of Jack the Ripper at the first U.S. conference to be held on Jack the Ripper in Park Ridge, New Jersey on April 8-9, 2000. The title of the conference is "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth." Check out the Casebook Productions web site at http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/
Chris George |
Author: J.V.Smith
Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 07:57 pm | | To:Chritopher T George
Thanks very much for the information,it has been a long time since I have read any thing that made any sense about this particulaur case,and it sometimes seems to me that solving some of the mysteries of the past is the final frontier.(and no I am not a Trekkie)
Respectfully
jvsmith8@bellsouth.net |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 12:06 am | | Hi Gang
According to my transcript the following exchange took place, from which it is clear that throughout Billy Graham was thinking that his father was the son of Florence, not the illegitimate son of James or anyone else, and within that context it is Billy who suggested descent from Florence. And Anne Graham sounds astonished by the claim rather than angry.
There was a discussion about a servant called Alice Jones. Billy Graham then muses out loud:
BG: I was working out that me father being her son. It's possible.
PF: Say that again!
BG: Me father being Maybrick's son, because at the time he would be? She was 15 when she had him.
AB (Anne): Who was 15?
PF: You're saying that Billy's mum...
BG: No me father, right, now if she had had him she would have been 15.
PF: When was your dad born? Do you know?
It goes on in this vein for a bit
PF: Yor dad was born in 1870
BG: Yeah, and she would have been, how old would she have been then?
PF: I don't know as I don't know exactly how old Alice Jones was...
BG: No. I am talking about the Maybrick she.
PF: Let me recap on this. You are saying that there was talk that Billy's, your dad, may have been Maybrick, James's, son?
BG: No. It is only what I am finding out now. But it may be possible. He could be, because she was only 15.
PF: Billy Grahams father...mother was only 15.
BG: No
PF: Your dad's mother was only 15.
BG: No, me dad. If she was trying to claim that me dad was her son. Now at the time she was in America wasn't she.
PF: Oh! We're talking about Florence.
BG: Yeah. She was in America when she was 15. She could have had... she had a child before didn't she...
PF: Before she married James?
BG: She had. The Maybrick one, had a child before she married him
AB: Who told you that!
BG: Someone told me that. I am sure they have.
Now, if you so choose to think that all this shows that Billy had been primed, you are entitled to do so. But what is clear is that Billy Graham had been told about Florence using the name Graham and during the intervening discussion had been working out whether his father could have been Florence's illegitimate son. He voices this, not making it clear who he's talking about (but I think it is clear that he meant Florence throughout), and when it does become clear, both Feldman and Anne are astonished by the suggestion. In this context I submit that my words "he advanced the connection of his own volition when he suggested that Florence was his grandmother" are perfectly correct.
I think it is unfair to say "The penny now has to drop for us all", as if the interview was a stage piece in which the audience is being manipulated to react in a specific way to the script. As for the statement that "Billy never said that Florie was his grandmother; the transcript is confused and the man may be talking about other people" I don't think this is in the least bit true. It is quite clear that Billy was talking about Florence throughout the exchange. It is also clear and not an implication that Paul Feldman and Anne Graham were taken by surprise.
But I am getting in deeper into this matter than I meant to. I was simply observing that Billy Graham wasn't badgered, forced, manoevered, led, or anything else into saying something he didn't want to say. The possibility that his father was the illegitimate son of Florence may indeed and almost certainly was planted in his mind by something Feldman had said, but according to the transcript it was otherwise wholly and completely Billy's own idea and, moreover, was an idea which took Feldy by surprise rather than being a line Feldy wanted Billy to take.
Of course, if one takes the view that the whole thing is staged, manipulated, selectively reported, selectively transcribed, and so on and so on, then it is possible to read all sorts of meanings into and behind what was going on. On the other hand, if it is accepted as being a gentle and somewhat inefficently conducted interview in which Feldy and to a lesser extent Billy Graham are trying to make sense of something, then you take the words at face value.
And thank you, Karoline, for you good wishes. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 02:55 am | | Dear Everyone,
Thanks to Paul taking the time to type everything out we all have a lot clearer idea of what was said at the interview.
However it is the interview in establishing a provenance for the diary which interests me. To do this Billy would have had to say something along the lines of ' That book has been passed down to me by my father. I have studied the contents and understand it to be a journal kept by someone who signs himself Jack the Ripper'
If this didn't happen, if for instance he just says its an old book and he has no idea of the contents then the interview is useless for establishing a provenence.
I take the point that Paul makes about how many of us could say what the contents of our own books might be, but I believe people are creatures of habit. We tend to have periodic clear outs, throwing away that which is of no interest. I cannot see a book being passed down from generation to generation without someone at some time opening it to find out whether or not it is worth passing down.
I believe that the book could have been a family scrap book or photo album, and that is what was being passed down. Then at some later date someone, knowing that the book is genuinely old, has removed the pages holding the scraps or the photos, and done the deed.
I believe that Paul points out that Anne would hardly put herself in peril of being accused as a forger for no good reason, and throughout the C&D meeting Mr Barret came making references to 'being arrested', but I'm not absolutely sure the peril ever existed.
I'm sure someone will know for cetain, but I believe that for forgery to be a criminal offence, the forgery must be done with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage. For example forging a will, or a painting and passing it off as a genuine work by another. But as far as I understand it neither Mr Barret or Anne Graham ever claimed it to be anything, they merely showed it to other people who drew their own conclusions.
In any case if Billy Graham does not state that he passed on the book, the contents of which he was aware of and they did constitute the diary, I'm afraid it would seem the provenance starts and stops with Anne Graham.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 11:39 am | | Paul - thanks for your thanks. Now, I know you're convalescent, and I'm not after laying too much on you. But all the disputation here only makes the point even clearer that what's needed is either public access to the original tape. OR a second transcript made by someone entirely unconnected with the diary in any way.
This at least would put the wording beyond dispute and answer some of the questions posed here.
It would also be in line with proper historical practise.
So - could you, (health permitting) either get permission to hand over a copy of your copy of the tape, or give some advice on who might be able to provide such a copy.
And one more question. Just to get the facts straight: could you tell me who Ms. Rooney is and in what way (if any) she is connected to the principal protagonists.
Take care of yourself
K. |
|
|
|
|
