|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 6, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through July 6, 2000
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 01:08 pm |        | Please excuse any typos in the following message, I am doing this in between ironing sessions, watching the Wimbledon tennis, making the beds and trying to keep my eyelids open (heavy night last night).
Love,
Caz
From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
Dear Melvin
It is now 01.30 AM on Wednesday morning and I am drafting this tired response to you, having just caught up with and skimmed through 115 pages of postings that Caroline has generously printed off for me. Amongst these are two messages from you directly to me. I note the acerbic tone of your most recent post (Monday July 3rd 2000 @ 04:31 PM), understandable in the circumstances, as you clearly thought I was pointedly avoiding answering your questions.
I hope RJ, Karoline and CMD will forgive me for rudely pole vaulting over them in order to give priority to some of the serious issues you raise. I do this because, if there is a chance to clear up misunderstandings and ill-conceived ideas we may nurture about each other, which may lead to peace and constructive discussions on these boards, then I am more than willing and prepared to grasp the opportunity.
You will forgive me, I trust, if I respond from the gut without reference to my notes to fine tune the detail.
“Bonding with Anne Graham”
Yes, I like her. Yes, we have a friendship. But Melvin, please try and understand, this affinity is not as simple as you are representing. As I have previously explained, I want the truth of this matter at all costs. I have a burning loyalty and enormous debt to repay to people like Martin Fido, Stewart Evans – and especially Paul Begg – who have stood by and supported me against adverse criticism, designed to diminish whatever vestiges of credibility I have remaining, because of my position over the Diary. Anne herself confesses to me that she feels wretched about being the cause of so many breaches in my relationship with Martin and Paul (Begg), because of our differing beliefs to do with the Diary. But then she would say that, wouldn’t she, being a cunning and manipulative woman whose sole aim in life is self-advancement, irrespective of how many friendships she abuses. And Anne herself knows that I am after the truth, whatever it takes, but still she telephones, inviting me into her world, knowing the risk she takes should I discover her complicity in fraud. Would you – or anybody – expect me to stay quiet?
“Obvious Fake”
I note your assertions but no matter how much you endorse your statements with scholarly and erudite support, it does not prove the Diary is a modern hoax of recent origin. Nobody, least of all myself, is denying the triumph of your achievement in identifying three books from which the factual detail of the Diary text could have been drawn. could have been drawn. I have no problem in admitting that I missed detail which you have found. If this means I bungled the research, then I accept your judgement which is based on your own high standards. Last year, on these boards, I told Peter Birchwood that I was prepared to take full responsibility for all of the bungled research, errors and deficiencies in both Shirley Harrison’s book and Paul Feldman’s book. Peter Birchwood was quite content with this public admission, as I knew he would be and it confirmed my suspicion that all of his professed admiration of my work on other books was just sham and hypocrisy. More so in the light of Mr Birchwood’s damaging inference that I actually condone working with documents that have been tampered with by Paul Feldman, in order for Paul to prove a point!
“The Maybrick Will”
Suffice to say that never, for one second, did I have any reason to think the Will was anything but genuine and written by James Maybrick.
But this does not mean the Diary is a modern hoax.
And I remain puzzled as to why no attempt was made to recreate Maybrick’s handwriting. I know the arguments that this type of forging expertise was probably outside the hoaxers’ capabilities – or they were simply unaware of the existence of the Will. Yet, if their primary reference source for all of the Maybrick material was The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick, why did they ignore the following passage (page 96 – hardback):-
“Having avoided a public reading of their brother’s will at the Coroner’s Inquest, Michael and Edwin Maybrick now privately broke the seal and read the document. It was written in James’s rather shaky hand on blue paper.”
I appreciate this tiny detail is of no concern to you but perhaps Mr Kane might explain.
“Usage of JTR name prior to ‘Dear Boss’ Letter”
I remain open minded about this and do not share your opinion about “faked history.”
But again, whether you are right and I am wrong, your challenge is against Paul Feldman and not the Diary. I feel you would lead a far more stress free life if you could just stand back and separate out Paul Feldman from the Diary because, to me, it is clear that your objectivity has become seriously impaired, by an emotional entanglement with Paul Feldman.
“Birthday Book”
No. I think you are wrong here because you do not have the full picture.
“Forbes Winslow”
If I understand you correctly, to what you are referring, then I could not agree with you more. I brought this particular letter to Paul Feldman’s attention, for no other reason than being interested in Forbes Winslow’s handwriting.
No – I have just examined this section in Feldman’s book – and see to what you are referring. My objection was to Paul trying to get “House” out of “Restante” and being told that is what it clearly said. From memory I think I established that the ‘Poste Restante’ was indeed situated at the Charing Cross Hotel and the writing should have made this clear. Had I spotted it, I would have suggested that Paul add a few words to that effect, because, you are right, it does create a misleading impression as it stands.
It’s a valid observation, my responsibility of course, and certainly not a deliberate error on my part, as I disagree with Paul’s reasoning in the first place!
“William McKay Signatures”
Again – working from memory – I never gave much support, (if any), or credibility to this line of enquiry and only involved myself with the research, when Paul Feldman was telling me things, which I wanted to check out for myself. The McKay signature was one of those aspects. I wasn’t convinced they matched, (and I seem to recall I was worried about the logic of how they could possibly be the same person anyway.) I suggested to Paul that if he was sure of his case, then just use both signatures as an illustration in the book, and allow people to form their own conclusions.
“Robbie Johnson”
I had very little to do with him and very early on concluded that he was feeding Paul Feldman time wasting and erroneous information and just pandering to Paul’s ego. My distrust of Robbie was matched only by my trust of Albert. As to Robbie Johnson’s background being hushed up, all I can honestly say is, that if it is, then not by me. I know very little about him beyond the fact that he, allegedly, was serving a prison sentence at the time Albert bought the watch. But this is only hearsay. Why do you ask the question?
“Mr Kane”
Are you telling me that Paul Feldman’s representation of your position is incorrect and that what he has written is a gross distortion of the truth? My statement is not an “ugly invention”. It rests on the following passage in Paul Feldman’s book:- (page 154 – pbk)
“Nancy Steele later confirmed that the handwriting in the diary was not her father’s. Tony’s will supported that. The witnesses to his will were also investigated. The Ripper author and diary detractor Melvin Harris also investigated the will. He concluded that Mr Cain [sic], one of the witnesses, was the forger. According to Mr Harris, Mr Cain's [sic] handwriting matched that in the diary and he had mysteriously ‘disappeared around the time that the diary became public’.
I will certainly re-read the text of your letter to Rod Green which I believe pre-dates the publication of Feldman’s book?
And finally – my reputation, which means nothing to me because I have never considered it to be important or have much meaning. It really matters not a jot to me to be exposed as incompetent or inept, if that is the case. It is of more concern to those people who wish to risk working with me now that my “name is associated with some pretty mean tactics and some pretty nasty manglings of the truth.” At any time, they are free to sever their professional connections to me if they consider I would endorse this type of practice. I do not agree with all of Paul Feldman’s conclusions. I do not agree with all of your conclusions. If what you are saying is that the only path to redemption is by abandoning Paul Feldman, distancing myself from his book and converting to your beliefs, then I would prefer to remain a tainted outcast.
And this board need have no more need of me – but I will reply privately to RJ, Karoline and CMD, although I’m not quite sure how to reach RJ or Karoline.
But if an apology is warranted, from me to you, over Mr Kane, then I will post this publicly. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 01:13 pm | | Phew!
I'm off for a Harvey Wallbanger and a quick look at Pistol Pete Sampras's legs before getting back to the ironing.
Thanks, Jill, for confirming it wasn't just me who remembers things like what I was doing to 'When A Man Loves a Woman' or 'I'm a Believer'. Perhaps women are better at dates than men though. We'll have to see.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 01:49 pm | | | And after all that, I would still value a description of the professional code which sealed Melvin's lips about the identity of the forgers while he watched his beloved waters of history become increasingly polluted over half a decade or more. Just a small point. And I also fully endorse Keith's request for a clear statement from Melvin about Mr. Kane. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 01:57 pm | | Welcome to the boards Shirley !
Given that so much is being said about Paul Feldman and his research now , is it possible to persuade Mr Feldman to come here and defend himself in person on the Internet ? I think he is the only major ' Diary ' personality from the case not here now , apart from Anne and Mike themselves !
I am very intrigued by what you have said about Albert Johnson , do you believe it is possible to trace the watch's origins back any further than we already know at the present ? If the Diary does predate 1987 then do you accept the possibility that both watch and Diary were , in the past , an attempt to incriminate James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper ? And if the Diary was an ' old forgery ' then who might have created it , and why ? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 02:18 pm | | From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
Dear Melvin
This is an appendix to my lengthy message which Caroline has kindly taken the time to transcribe and post on my behalf.
I have now looked very closely at the text of your letter to Rod Green (Virgin Publishing), dated October 14th 1996, a copy of which I received from Rod on November 9th 1996. For your immediate reference, this is the letter where you describe me to a Senior Editor at Virgin Publishing as Paul Feldman’s “paid henchman.” (Happily my name and role must have stuck with Rod, as he later went on to commission Martin Fido and myself to write The Official Encyclopedia Of Scotland Yard.)
Nowhere in this letter, though, can I see any specific reference to Mr Kane, which is, as you confirm in your post to me, the very matter we are dealing with. Might you be referring to another letter which I have not seen or, knowing my proclivity for overlooking detail, have I simply missed Mr Kane’s name in the text?
You’ve advised me to tread carefully, but could you also possibly give me some advice as to what I am meant to be looking for? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 02:27 pm | | Dear Caz--I sometimes get the impression from reading your posts that you have Keith Skinner locked up in your attic! My copy of Shirley Harrison's book is, alas, the 1993 hardback edition, though I can easily get hold of a copy of the revised edition(which I want to do anyway) if that makes things easier for you. I would normally feel guilty if Mr. Skinner spent too much time or effort in responding to me, but, in this case, I am sure that his comments will be of interest to everyone following this conversation.
Having read your post from a day or two ago, I can only say that I flunked out with dishonors from the Emily Post course on etiquette and know nothing whatsoever about netiquette. You've always struck me (knowing you only from these message boards, of course) as sincere, friendly, and, incidently, very funny. Tone is a difficult thing to gauge, and I have seen times where I think you were misunderstood. Being Keith Skinner's Ariel and Caliban on these boards must be a bit of a chore, but you do it well. It was a dismal day when Caz lost her smile :-(
It's true that I have more or less gone AWOL to the Harris and Birchwood camp, but this was not out of disrespect nor malice towards anyone's views, but only because I have found many of their arguments to be compelling. For instance, Melvin Harris's study of the Diary's ink, with its references to the Eastaugh Report and the Analysis for Industry Report, is hard to dismiss. If I were as eloquent as Abe Lincoln I would say something like 'a house divided cannot stand', and hope that, however the Diary debate is finally resolved, all sides will retreat to their various territories with honor and reputation intact. Maybe this is just being soppy and optimistic. But I give Keith Skinner's comments great weight and have no doubt whatsoever about his integrity, sincerity, or intelligence.
Three years ago Alex Chisolm called the Maybrick Diary an 'imaginative intrusion into serious Ripperology'. I wonder if he still feels the same way! It's rather a grim business these days. I hope that during your sorjourn in sunnier climes none of this even crosses your mind.
Cheers,
RJP |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 04:12 pm | | RJ -
To the best of my knowledge, my peerless colleague Alex Chisholm still feels the same about the Diary, though if he's changed his mind, I am sure he will let you know!
As well, have you tracked down the Roger Wilkes essay on "Poste House?" If not, I would be happy to send you a copy.
CMD |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 04:20 am | | NOT THE OBVIOUS MAN
Letter should read letters, my error. I can't locate this at the moment because I'm moving home. But I did point out that in any investigation the investigator is obliged to act in such a way that he can either identify the suspect or exonerate him. I have never claimed that Mr Kane was the OBVIOUS writer of the Diary. The sample of his handwriting was too small and he refused to supply samples of past handwriting. People will have to wait for answers to other questions. But to R.J. Palmer I have this to say. It was claimed in Harrison's book that Mike Barrett had badgered the librarians at Liverpool who had given him the name of the Sphere History of English Literature. I checked and double checked with the Liverpool Central Library and their records show they do not hold a copy of this book and never have.
The question of the forgers and their knowledge of the Will has already been answered by me on these boards in detail, please refer back. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 05:02 am | | | A mispost. Sorry. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 05:22 am | | You may never have claimed that Mr. Kane was the OBVIOUS writer of the 'diary', Melvin, but exactly what is it that you have claimed? You are able to state with utter conviction that Mike and Ann were the 'placers', but how do you know this for certain? How do you know that they didn't forge it, if you don't know who did (and I am not saying that you can't know this, only asking how you do know it)?
For years to have hinted at possessing privileged information about the identity of the forgers. But what exactly do you know? What exactly are you saying? And how long will readers have to wait until you feel able to answer 'other' questions? Until Mr. Kane is dead? Until Mr Kane, like Donald McCormick, is no longer around to defend himself? You express concern about Mr. Kane's health and very rightly so, but I am equally concerned that Mr. Kane be given the opportunity while alive to reply to whatever allegations may be laid against him in the future, be it by you or unnamed London journalists. |
Author: Shirley Harrison
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 12:16 pm | | | It is with some pleasure that I can alert surfers of the message board - all that Our Leader contributes is not always correct. On March 22 1998 I wrote to Janet Graham at the Liverpool Library "in the pursuit of exact information" to double check the existence of the Sphere books in the library. I had been told Volume 2 was missing. I was told that all the volumes were in fact there - not on the shelves but in their repository upstairs. I telephoned Janet Graham today and she has just returned my call - with the volume containing the Crashaw lines in her hand. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 12:33 pm | | I'd like to thank Mrs. Harrison for her timely reply to Melvin Harris' question regarding Robbie Johnson. On June 28th I wrote:"We have four persons who are or have been involved in either the diary or the watch: Albert Johnson, Anne Graham, Robert Johnson and Mike Barrett. Of those, two: Robbie and Mike have been accused of having a dodgy past and Anne of having a "mysterious" one. This is surely quite a high percentage." We're now able to say that Robbie definitely had a pretty dodgy past and we have Feldmans' word that the same is true for Mike.
Mrs Harrison says in answer to Melvin's question as to whether the truth about Robbie is being hushed up:"The answer is "no" because the truth has absolutely no relevance to the appearance of the watch which is why we have never publicised it." Let me discuss this.
The "truth" about Robbie is of course that he had a criminal record. Although he may have been in prison at the time Albert Johnson bought the watch he was certainly out by April 1993 when the Diary story broke. According to Feldman it was Robbie who was handling the matter.Feldman was also misinformed in at least one respect: he believed that Albert had "total control of the watch" whereas we now know that he had given 25% to his brother. It's also interesting that Robbie is said to have sold his interest to "a friend" and Mrs. Harrison's use of quotes here and in the word "accident" concerning Robbie's death in Spain is intriguing. I've seen the Spanish Police report on the death but I don't believe that there was a hint of mystery in it although there are rumours about the affair as Mrs. Harrison says.
The important point though is whether the truth about Robbie's past has relevance to the Watch. Surely the criminal history of the person handling the watch matter has every relevance especially when an artifact like this turns up at such an incredibly opportune time. Robbie was in debt and had a bad history. Was this known, at the time they wrote their books, to Mrs Harrison and Mr. Feldman? If it was, was there no attempt on their part to investigate whether Robbie could have taken the watch from his brother (it seems to have been left, ignored, in a drawer for some time) and made the necesary marks on it. If the sale mentioned in Feldman's book had gone through, Robbie (or his "friend") would have made a decent amount of cash.
And lastly, could Robbie have faked the scratches? Well the detail of how this could have been done was dealt with some time ago by Melvin Harris and I would refer the reader to that. Mr. Harris has first-hand professional experience involving the aging of metal artifacts and the technical skill needed to detect forgeries of this nature; I can do nothing better than to refer you to his.posting on this subject. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 01:16 pm | | Hi R.J,
Just for you:
J J J
I'll unlock the attic door and give Keith your post post haste.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Shirley Harrison
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 01:37 pm | | Dear Peter...a perfectly valid observation. I cant reply in detail now....dog needs walking. But no - I had absolutely no idea of Robbie's record until ages after publication. I cant speak for Paul F.
But I think we must be very careful now and perhaps give Albert a chance to respond. I would hate to see him hurt in our enthusiasm to find out what really happened. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 01:40 pm | | Dear Mr. Bluster,
Do you hear something? There it is again!
I can't quite make it out; it has a hollow sound to it though. I think I know what it is. It's your credibility, Mr. Bluster, swirling around at the bottom of the loo.
You're backtracking, stumbling, mumbling, and obfuscating. You're denying past statements, and you're still refusing to address two simple questions in a straightforward manner. Oh, I get it; you're standing for parliament in your district. Right? Right.
Everybody's watching you Mr. Bluster; they're waiting for you to answer my questions. My questions are not going to go away, I'll continue to post them every day until you answer them in an honorable, and direct fashion. In case you're wondering how that works, I'll explain it for you.
NO OBFUSCATING, NO DOUBLE TALK, PLAIN SPOKEN, STRAIGHTFORWARD, [yes or no if ya like] ANSWERS.
No one is going to be able to believe a word you say, if you can't answer two simple questions honestly.
You've been accusing people of professional sloth, and carelessness without evidence, you've made statements without supporting them, you refuse to answer pertinent questions put before you. Are you being less then honest with us Mr. Bluster? I can't wait until your "ACOLYTES" come out of the moist ground and try to defend you, and your hypocrisy.
You have been engaged in an arrogant, and conceited, smear campaign, against Ms. Harrison, Paul Begg, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Feldman, et al. You are being called to task sir, to explain and support your statements against these folks, and apparently, you aren't up to it. Be careful Mr. Bluster, for now, your credibility is swirling. If you answer questions straight-out, and can support your statements, you may still be able to reach in and save it in time; if not, down it goes with the rest of the flotsam. [BTW, that's real potty talk]
THE QUESTIONS:
1) If you do not know the person or persons posting as either Validictor or Dear Diary, do you know of them?
2) Have you ever spoken on the telephone with, spoken directly to, or overheard the muffled voices of a person or persons that you knew,(Meaning: You could identify faces and associate those faces with names) were posting to this forum anonymously, but were unaware of their pseudonym?
Be advised, I will continue to ask you these questions until you answer them in a straightforward, and honorable manner or until hell freezes over; which ever happens first.
Your old pal
The Roto Rooter Man |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 01:54 pm | | "Peter Birchwood was quite content with this public admission, as I knew he would be and it confirmed my suspicion that all of his professed admiration of my work onother books was just sham and hypocrisy. More so in the light of Mr Birchwood's damaging inference that I actuallycondone working with documents that have been tampered with by Paul Feldman, in order for Paul to prove a point!"
Well I have been perfectly happy over the past few months not to have any contact with the aggravating Mr. Skinner but this is too silly even for him. Of course I have admired some of his research on other books as well as some of his work as head of the Feldman team. Skinner is not totally incompetent as has come up with some worth-while items. I have also addressed on many occasions the fact that I do not blame the poor fellow for the birth certificate problem. Methinks the man doth protest too much.
"Suffice to say that never, for one second, did I have any reason to think the Will was anything but genuine and written by James Maybrick."
So does he think the Diary genuine? Double negatives especially in the early hours of the morning can be troublesome because then he says: "But this does not mean the Diary is a modern hoax." It's hazardous to one's health to work out what's meant here. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 02:40 pm | | Keith's words aren't difficult to work out at all, Peter. Keith said that he has always accepted that James Maybrick's Will was genuine. He has. He also said that this does not brand the 'diary' a modern hoax. It doesn't. What's so difficult about that?
Instead of attacking Keith all the time, why don't you answer some questions when they are asked of you? It might just progress the discussion a little. For example, why did you want to place Tony D.'s Will on the Message Boards? |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 05:59 pm | | | Melvin, would you be so generous please, amid all the other questions posed and awaiting your answer, to tell me if the Liverpool Central Library, with whom you checked and double checked to see if they had a copy of the Sphere History of English Literature, is the same as the Liverpool City Library. I assume that Liverpool only has one library, but I'm sure you can confirm this for me. Thank you. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 06:17 pm | | THINK AGAIN MR BEGG
I leave it to Begg to give Mr Triola his marching orders.
Privileged information is just that, privileged. The smear involving Donald McCormick is unwarranted and I expect Begg to withdraw it. I have provided all the evidence, that anyone can check for themselves, that McCormick was a twister and faker, and I made that clear in many ways when the man was alive. Begg and others may have been taken in by this chap, but before my first book was written I had already demonstrated his duplicity. Sorry if others were taken in by him, but if they'd done their work properly his book could have been exposed within days of its initial publication.
Regarding Mrs Harrison's statement it appears that the Liverpool Central Library must have computer problems, I have checked with them today and the information given to me is quite different to that given to Mrs Harrison. Even so, Mike's copy does open at the right page.
Since I am moving home that is enough for now. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 08:13 pm | | To Paul Begg from Chris George
Hi, Paul:
Speaking as a Liverpudlian, I can tell you that the Liverpool Central Library, where Melvin Harris "checked and double checked to see if they had a copy of the Sphere History of English Literature" is the same as the Liverpool City Library. Both references obviously concern the main branch of the city's public library on William Brown Street. I wonder how many hours the forger(s) spent combing the shelves of that venerable library? :-)
Paul, I entirely agree with you that Melvin should come clean on what he knows about the forger(s) of the Maybrick Diary. We have suffered through the trauma of the Diary long enough. Melvin himself has pronounced the Diary "a great waster of time" (interview, Ripper Notes, Vol. 1, No. 4, March 2000, p. 6) and surely he does not wish to be perceived as perpetuating the fraud. If this is a hoax, and I for one believe it is, it is time to produce the definitive proof. Mr Kane in fact might welcome the chance to confess to his part in the hoax. If Mr Kane is as ill as Melvin says he is, he surely would not face prosecution.
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
