|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through July 10, 2000
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 08:14 pm |        | Dear Mr. Bluster,
I am no one's puppet. No one controls me, or influences my dialog. There is no conspiracy, or concerted effort to "get Melvin Harris"; I act according to my own belief system. You think, that because Validiary acted in concert with you, it must surely be the same with Paul, and me. Wrong. Paul is a good man, asking the right questions in an intelligent manner. Your cowardly, anonymous friends were trying to set him up for some personal abuse, and I didn't like that. I involved myself of my own volition. It seems independent action is a concept you are unfamiliar with; considering the company you keep, I'm not surprised.
The fact remains. You...don't want to answer my questions. You realize if you answer them truthfully, you will look bad, lose face, lose credibility, and just plain lose. Your sanctimonious friends backed the wrong horse in this particular race, and your loyalty binds you to them. They must have an awful lot to lose. Are they so timid, and gutless that they'd let you swing for them?
Mr. Bluster, answer the questions, and get on with your life.
I will not go away. When you come back, the questions will be here waiting for your attention.
Have a nice day. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 05:33 am | | Melvin, I have no influence over Mr. Triola. Perhaps you should just answer his questions.
I understand what 'privileged' means, but I want to know what code it is that allows you to suppress information which could have prevented the pollution of the waters of history. You have obsessively railed and raged against Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison and everyone associated with them, yet all the time you possessed the information unearthed by London newspaper journalists which could have stopped them. Why was this information suppressed? Did you ever ask the journalists to reveal it? Did you ever argue with them, ever plead with them, ever write them open letters? I must say that the pain and heartache this 'diary' has caused to so many people, the money it has absorbed, the time it has wasted - well, I'm sorry Melvin, but I really am struggling to understand the code that you and the unnamed journalists abide by which allows this to happen and I really do look forward to your detailed explanation.
I regret that you consider my comment about Donald McCormick an unwarranted smear. I thought it was an accurate statement of fact. As I understand it, in 1988 you planned to expose Donald McCormick as a fraud and fabricator on national peak-time television. You understood that Mr. McCormick was in poor health and took some basic precautions ("Because I knew that McCormick's health was not good, I decided to soften any future blows by giving him prior warning." - Melvin Harris, The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy), but you were reassured when Mr. McCormick explained that "His only concern then was to guard against too much stress, in case he had an attack of ANGINA…" (Melvin Harris on Monday, May 3, 1999 - 06:38 pm).
As an aside, speaking as one who was twice rushed into hospital with severe angina attacks I can appreciate Mr. McCormick's desire to avoid stress and I am therefore amazed that Mr. McCormick apparently thought exposure as a fraud and fabricator on peak-time national television would be a stress free experience. But since you assure us that he knew exactly what was going on, I can only admire his intestinal fortitude in agreeing to be subjected to the cross-questioning you had planned for him.
However, the point is that your exposure of Mr McCormick did not go ahead and despite an examination of some of McCormick's claims in your book The Bloody Truth the promised full-exposure of McCormick did not come until after Mr. McCormick's death when you posted a paper The Maybrick Hoax: Donald McCormick's Legacy on this site, with further promised revelations to come in your 'next book'. As far as I am aware, this was the first time that you publicly revealed information such as McCormick's alleged confession to authorship of the Eight Little Whores poem. You had made this claim verbally to Paul Feldman the first time you met him and he made it known to Shirley Harrison, both of whom contacted Mr. McCormick who denied it. You, perhaps not surprisingly, responded by calling the denial a lie. There is no way of resolving this matter because McCormick is dead. You can speak, explain, add more detail. Mr. McCormick's only defence are a couple of brief comments fortunately preserved in two letters.
I did not appreciate that my understanding was incorrect. I did not think my comments a 'smear', but a simple statement of fact. And I thought the observation was warranted because apparently you and Birchwood do entertain suspicions - perhaps even beliefs - about Mr. Kane. If Mr. Kane is indeed guilty then he may be prepared to make an admission, may even welcome the opportunity. If innocent, he would probably value the chance to deny whatever allegations you may bring in the future.
Finally, there is amid a frighteningly large stack of fading thermal-paper faxes one from Liverpool Central Library and dated 6th October 1994 at 10.10am in which it states that Sphere's History of English Literature Volume 2 was at that very moment freely and easily available on their shelves. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 05:41 am | | Hi Chris
Many thanks for the information about the library. I don't want to put Melvin in the position of having to betray any confidences, but I'm sure it would be appreciated if he could perhaps direct us to the journalists who shared with him their information or maybe just told us which London daily newspaper he means, like the Evening Standard for example, or a national daily. As you say, this thing has gone on for too long for us to be messed about with hints and codes and so forth. In the meantime, I hope all is well with you and that the commuting isn't getting you down too much. Cheers
Paul |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 05:57 am | | | My apologies: in my annoyance at the words of Skinner I misread his message. I hope that unlike Begg I can correct mistakes with some degree of grace. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 08:00 am | | | Well, not in this case you haven't. But instead of the snide remarks, how about progressing things and answering the question I posed? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 08:36 am | | Hi All,
I’ve just nipped down from the attic with the following message from Keith. Please bear in mind that Keith has written this without having read all the most recent posts, from July 4th @ 07.53am. Those he has not seen yet include all posts from July 6th @ 01.37pm to date. He is most anxious that I make this clear to avoid any misunderstandings.
Have a great weekend all. I am up to my eyes today, so please also bear in mind that I will be posting this with a duster in one hand and a broom up my a***. (Just a little image to leave you all with.)
Love,
Caz
From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris
I am still treading carefully and have noted that you cannot locate this
very significant and revealing letter, dealing with the matter of Mr Kane,
which you sent to Rod Green (Virgin Publishing) - because you are now moving
house.
I repeat my question, for which you shouldn't require to consult any
documents :-
"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?"
To remind you of what Paul Feldman wrote - and which you told this board was
my "ugly invention"...
"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’." (Paul Feldman, page 154)
I'm aware that Paul Feldman did have a tendency to ascribe thoughts and
views to people, privately, publicly and in print, which they might perhaps
not have held - or even said - and I'm concerned this may be so in your
case.
Peter Birchwood, (an ardent admirer of yes your competent work, sharing, as
he does, your high standards of research - lamentably lacking in my own
case), generously offered to put up Tony Devereux's Will on the
board, presumably because he had read the same passage in Paul Feldman's
book. So it must have come as a great surprise to him to learn that Mr Kane
was not the OBVIOUS writer of the ‘diary’. This revelation must have been
quite a shock to Peter Birchwood, coming so soon after learning from you
that neither Mike nor Anne physically wrote the diary. So much so that I note
Mr Birchwood has now abandoned this area of conjecture and turned his
attention to the watch, where he may be on safer ground, until somebody
starts questioning his reasoning or wishes to discuss his conclusions.
And whilst you are pondering over the extremely relevant questions put to
you by Paul Begg, let me add another one for you to consider. You see, I'm
also concerned that you have created the impression for RJ Palmer (and
others) that Mike Barrett never went to Liverpool Library in Search of "0
Costly Intercourse. .." and that his confession to you, when he described in
such detail Crashaw's quote and the book's physical deficiency, was prior to
the publication of Shirley Harrison's book in October 1993. I cannot
conceivably believe that you would have been 'duped' by Mike Barrett, which
is why it is so important to know the precise date of your conversation with
him? I'm sure you understand the relevance of this, because if your talk
with him was prior to the publication of Shirley's book – or pre-dated
Mike Barrett discovering the source of the quote for himself in Liverpool
Library, I cannot think of a possible reason why you should have kept this
incriminating and damning piece of evidence to yourself. |
Author: Shirley Harrison
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 09:12 am | | It is quite clear from all that is going on, that right now there is only one question to be answered. Paul and Keith are right in their curiosity. If Melvin or Peter are indeed privy to the real truth about the diary or to sources that are they must come clean. We all of us - despite the constant inuendo and assertions to the contrary want to know where and how this document was created. If Peter and Melvin have the ANSWER and not just another theory we could stop all this now. It is for this reason that I see no point in trying to justify my existence for the last eight years. I will do that and deal with the watch, the Poste House and the library when I am convinced that they are not bluffing and blustering and we could all take early retirement.
In the meantime, and at the risk of sounding commercial I would suggest that those such as R.J Palmer,who sounds quite balanced but who has not seen my last updated paperback, try to get it from the library. Most of the questions asked on this board are dealt with there......after we had had time for deeper and broader research, in more peaceful conditions than those which surrounded me during the horrendous year prior to the hardback. There are few fixed points in this story - information comes in all the time and my perceptions may have changed, or been adapted accordingly. Sometimes I have been wrong. Sometimes I made mistakes but NEVER have I knowingly tried to suppress relevant information. I hope the same applies those "on the other side". |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 04:43 pm | | THE FACTS THAT WON'T GO AWAY
The truth is that a number of people knew about McCormick's confessions long before the Diary emerged. Indeed, I wrote to Martin Fido from Ireland warning him that the 'Eight Little Whores' poem was a fake created by McCormick, and that was years before Mike Barrett appeared on the scene.
As far as the Sphere History of English Literature goes, I'm not responsible for any muddles at the Liverpool Library. But the most important point made to me some time back by the first librarian I spoke to was exactly the point made recently by Mr Palmer. The librarian asked if the book contained a first-line index of poems. When I said "No" she stated that without such a guidance it would not be possible to locate an obscure poem in any of the volumes of that history. In other words someone would have to have read the whole of the book to have located the poem, unless, of course, you owned a book that obligingly opened at the right page! A book just like Mike's.
Why are they making such a fuss about a modern fake? People are going to make money out of it no matter what I say.
Other answers will be made when I have settled into my new place. |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 06:12 pm | | Dear Mr. Bluster,
Today is July 7th, Y2K. It is now Q+4 days and counting.
THE QUESTIONS THAT WON'T GO AWAY:
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.
When you come back, the questions will be
here waiting for your attention.
Have a nice day. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 11:20 pm | | Hello Joseph:
At the risk of incurring your wrath, will you drop this bluster of your own? You are taking up valuable space.
Chris George |
Author: Joseph Triola Jr.
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 11:30 pm | | Hello Mr. George,
Respectfully sir, I must decline. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 02:58 am | | Melvin, you may indeed have told many people about Donald McCormick's confession, but did Donald McCormick know what you were saying? If he didn't, he couldn't defend himself. When he did know, when Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison asked him, he denied it. When the full story was made public on this site, McCormick was dead and unable to respond.
You may also have told many people about Mr. Kane. This time, though, I think you should make the whole story public and available to Mr. Kane so that he can reply.
I completely agree with you that you are not responsible for any muddles at the Liverpool Library, assuming there have been any. However, you are responsible for the content of your post The Facts That Won't Go Away (Friday, July 7, 2000 - 04:43 pm), in which, if my reading is correct, you seem to criticise Shirley Harrison for failing to check with the Liverpool Library to see if they possessed a copy of the Sphere History of English Literature and thus verify what Mike Barrett had told her.
For the benefit of anyone who may not know what is being discussed here, the 'diary' contains a line of obscure poetry which a number of people could not identity but which was eventually (and suspiciously!) found by Mike Barrett. In her book, Shirley Harrison explains that at her request Mike Barrett had gone to Liverpool Library and according to Mike had been directed by the staff there to the Sphere History of English Literature, wherein the poem was found.
Harris has claimed that the library does not have and never have had a copy of the book, from which one must deduce that Barrett's story was a lie. Harris's point appears to be in failing to confirm Barrett's story, as Harris himself had done, Shirley Harrison's research was deficient. In fact she did check with the library in 1994 and they did possess a copy. And still do. It is Harris who is wrong, whether it be a consequence of deficiencies in his own research or, as he claims, an unfortunate muddle at Liverpool Library which others did not encounter.
But let us not allow this diversionary swipe at Shirley Harrison detract from the main thrust of Harris's criticism, namely that Mike Barrett later claimed to have his own copy of the Sphere History of English Literature. As Shirley relates, Mike claimed that he'd been sent some defective copies by the publisher to sell in a charity fund raising event, but when unable to sell them he had put them in his attic and only remembered them after his attention had been drawn to the book by the library. The words 'I should coco!' might spring to mind on hearing this - they certainly sprang to my mind - but Shirley expressed her thoughts a little differently, saying that she was 'extremely suspicious'. However, thinking only of Mike and Ann being the forgers, doubting that either Mike or Ann had the literary skill to place the line of poetry to 'such sensitive effect' in the 'diary', having checked and discovered that the library did possess the book in question (thus seemingly confirming part of Mike's tale), and otherwise finding Mike explanation of why he had the books plausible, Shirley felt unable to find any 'sound explanation for his discovery'. (see the Revised edition, pg. 284 for the full story.)
All of which returns us to Tony Devereax - to whom Mike in more recent years has apparently said he passed the poetic gem, his eyes having alighted on it because the fault in the books in his attic caused them to fall open on the page where the poem appears - and to supposed penman Mr. Kane.
So, rather than get bogged down with all these points of detail and attempts to diminish Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, and so on, could we please now be informed or at least offered some guidance to the discoveries of the unnamed London journalists? |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 05:26 am | | | Oh, by the way, Melvin, money has nothing to do with this. Or, rather it does - losing it! Who can say what the reaction of those reviving the film deal will have to any revelation that the 'diary' was forged by Tont D. and Mr. Kane? They may pull out. Shirley Harrison is more than appreciative of this possibility, but is still keen that you reveal what you know. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 07:23 am | |  |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 09:57 am | | Hi Peter:
Thank you so much for posting a copy of Tony Devereaux's will. I assume the witness "A. Graham" is NOT Anne Graham. This witness has an address in Kirby whereas Anne Graham Barrett was then (March 1979) living in Liverpool, I presume. Am I right?
In regard to Kane's entry as a witness to the will, I have compared his writing to the handwriting in the facsimile Diary in Shirley Harrison's hardback "The Diary of Jack the Ripper." There is a similarity between the two. I find this particularly in the formation of the letter "p" which is written in a closed-in almost squished fashion in both documents. I am not so sure about the capital letter "M" which is not formed quite like it is in the Diary except for the fact that the two peaks are uneven in height. The capital letter "C" is written with a fancy loop which is characteristic of a number of the capital letters in the Diary. The writer in both pieces of writing slopes the letters up to the upper right. The biggest difference possibly is in the formation of the letter "t" in "Cabinet" which is in Kane's entry on the will given with a very short cross stroke. In the Diary, the writer throughout gives a very long cross stroke for the letter "t" in many words. Of course, he or she may have done this because they thought the long cross stroke looked more antique. So, did Kane pen the Diary text? Perhaps so, but before making a final determination, I would like to examine what other evidence or writing samples of Kane's Melvin Harris has been able to obtain, or what evidence the unnamed London journalists may have about Kane. Paul Begg is quite correct that a film deal may be in jeopardy if a hoax can be proven once and for all.
Chris George |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Saturday, 08 July 2000 - 12:19 pm | | Chris-Ah, they'll just change the scenario.
Peter - Thanks for posting the will. I did not find your mail-address, so I posted an answer to your question in the General Discussions->Task Analyses thread.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:51 am | | From Keith Skinner To Peter Birchwood
There is no “birth certificate problem” that cannot be resolved by a reappraisal of the situation and a genuine desire to examine the facts objectively. But you were not prepared to do this. Instead, you were content to post a message which created the impression that I condoned working with doctored documents. And then it transpired you had never seen the actual certificate in question for yourself.
Where there is a problem, Peter, is with you pre-judging situations, assuming the worst about people, placing your damaging innuendo against me in a public forum, refusing to answer questions directly, and an apparent inability to understand the difference between obfuscation and the weighing up and considering of alternative possibilities.
I think it is transparently clear you are unable to admit mistakes with any degree of grace or humility. Why you should have a problem with this I just do not know. Melvin Harris highlighted detail that I overlooked. I don’t feel diminished by this – I feel grateful. It provides me with more information and reshapes my thinking. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:53 am | | From Keith Skinner To Paul Begg
Yes – well remembered about the Evening Standard. This might be the newspaper to which Melvin Harris is alluding.
‘Londoner’s Diary’, (Evening Standard), December 8th 1994, reported Melvin Harris as follows:-
‘“There is now no doubt whatsoever that they are a recent fake,” he claims. “The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known.”
To this end, he has established the Committee for Integrity, a body intent on exposing the truth about the diary.’
I’ve never actually heard the name of anybody else who is on this Committee, but presumably Mike Barrett is a member, as his avowed aim is to prove that he was responsible for masterminding the hoax. I think I would give quite a lot to see the minutes of the meeting where Mike Barrett was told that he was only a ‘placer’ of the Diary.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 07:21 am | | Keith:- We can do no more than wait for Melvin Harris to reveal what he's suppressed for half a decade or more, or tell us what representations he's made over the years to the London journalists that they reveal their knowledge and stop the pollution of history (and tell us why they've refused - for surely, while he's been pursuing Feldy, Shirley and so on, he must have pleaded with the journalists to reveal what they know!) or just tell us who the journalists were and let us contact them.
In the meantime, while Melvin is settling into his new home, Peter Birchwood could tell us why he offered to put the Will up and tell us why he has now done so. He's been asked to do this twice already. |
Author: Shirley Harrison
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 10:14 am | | Oh Keith, what a treat in a gloomy weekend. The picture of Mike and Melvin sharing a boardroom table has cheered me up no end.....and its not the fear of a lost film deal which makes me sad it is the malicious and unprofessional waste of time.
Incidentally has Melvin ever met Mike for any length of time (apart from the launch)?
PLEASE - those of you with privileged information that I have been unable to find - where is it? |
|
|
|
|
