|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 9, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
Thoughts on the diary:
Archive through June 9, 1999
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 03:22 pm |        | Greetings Melvin:
Then I think we can say with certainty that Mr. Feldman has not clarified the provenance of the diary, for if we go by the different links posited in his book, a chain of maybes, perhaps, probablies, iterated in my post earlier, we have the following:
The diary is first in the hands of Billy Graham in 1943 and came to the Graham family through the following possible processes:
Maybe from the Maybrick household through grandmother Elizabeth Formby's friendship with Maybrick servant Alice Yapp
". . . a [possible] connection to Anne through James Maybrick. . ."
". . . or through [the illicit union of] Florence [Maybrick] and a prison warder [ca post-1889 when she was incarcerated in Walton prison and thereafter Aylesbury prison]. . . . "
"Billy Graham was born in 1913. . . . Billy's father William was apparently the illegitimate son of Florence." . . . "born when she was an unmarried teenager [Florence married James Maybrick in 1881 at age 19]."
These are hypotheses not proof of provenance in any way shape or form.
My presumption here is that--although I have had this go-around with Keith Skinner and Paul Begg before--while the late Billy Graham was not exactly badgered into saying there was a connection between his Graham family and Florence Maybrick (aka Graham), the idea was broached and he said it on tape as if it could have been a possibility. But where are the birth certificates, the letters, anything, that would prove that this link is anything more than hot air? My presumption furthermore is that Anne Graham is taking this presumed link with the Maybricks supposedly "established" by Feldman and running with it for all its worth.
Chris George |
Author: Valediktor
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 03:28 pm | | Aha! So the lure of big money was the motive of the Diary camp all along.
Has the much vaunted Diary film been resurrected, and does this explain the otherwise strange stance of the Diary defenders who have suddenly taken to these boards again with a vengeance?
Perhaps time will tell, but at least the chance of making some money would explain a lot, when you have people who don't believe in it defending it at every turn. No hidden agendas here, just plain old-fashioned money making. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 06:49 pm | | LEST WE FORGET
Anne Barrett has told at least three different stories about the origins of this Diary. First she claimed that all she knew was that Mike had been given it by Devereux. Then she claimed that the Diary had been in her hands since 1988 but had been hidden by her behind a cupboard at their house in Goldie Street. (Page 235 Harrison pbk).
This second version was quickly ridiculed by Mike Barrett who took private detective Alan Gray to his house and showed him just how tiny the place was. He also explained that he had looked after his daughter during the day, while his wife went out to work, and the cleaning and decorating of the place had been his responsibility. They had bought the house at a low price, since it was in a bad state and needed renovating, so he was for ever moving the furniture around in order to restore the place. Therefore, it was impossible, he said, that a diary of that size could have stayed hidden for even a few weeks, let alone years!
Faced with this (and other objections) Anne has now revised her account and states that the Diary was only concealed by her for a mere few weeks in 1991. Are the alarm bells ringing yet?
Melvin Harris |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 10:53 am | | Who are the alarm bells ringing about?
Both Anne's and Mike's stories have chopped and changed on several occasions. On the whole Anne's story is more consistent than Mike's but some people choose to believe Mike. Unless we got then both into court then neither can really be believed beyond a certain point.
Anne story does have one thing going for it that Mike's doesn't - a corroborative witness account.
Dela |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 09:50 pm | | Hi all,
Um, excuse me for being dense again, but presumably if mega-bucks in film rights are going to be made ANYWAY by the 'diary defenders', 'diary camp', 'diary loonies' (or whatever latest sad term has been fashioned to encompass them all), wouldn't they be sitting back laughing at all you whingebags here, drowning themselves in Moet and wolfing down the Beluga caviare canapes, instead of engaging in dull, fruitless and witless slanging matches with grown-up people who sound just ever so slightly bitter and twisted about the whole thing? :-)
What gives?
I don't stand to make a cent out of any of this, but I know whose 'side' I'd rather be on.
Has anyone thought of making a drama out of the dramas here on the Casebook? Now we could all be stars of the first international soap opera, Wot A Web We Weave, or Cantankerous Casebook Characters....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 11:30 pm | | Caz
It's possibly high time us non-colonial types were catching some shut-eye but, being a cantankerous old git, I thought I should point out that your "I know whose 'side' I'd rather be on" could, and probably will be affixed with all manner of partisan connotations.
That aside, however, I'm sure even you would not wish to see the apparently appealing pro-diary propaganda go unchallenged here, or anywhere else. Truly that way madness lies. So I don't think you should be too hard on we 'whingebags', particularly given the laughs we provide for the assembled multitude.
Best wishes
Alex |
Author: Gomer
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 01:01 am | | Hey Cazziemae,
Whats a whingebag For? |
Author: Caz
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 02:28 am | | Hi Alex,
Absolutely mate. I love anything to do with diary discussions, mad and furious debate is GREAT, I wouldn't be without it, but 'cantankerous old gits' I can't stomach :-)
I would never think of you as one of the cantankerous old gits on this web-site though ;-)
I'm not sure the word propoganda is 100% appropriate, when most of the suspect boards have authors banging on about their own particular Jack the Ripper solution. What's the difference? They are nearly all, if not every single one, WRONG solutions, yet they still promote their own books indirectly, surely? Even Lewis Carroll biographers are guilty of it here, in a forum discussing JtR (sorry Karoline, am I on that percentage yet? :-))
Anyway, that's enough tongue-lashing for you. I'll save the real McCoy for one of my special 'partisans' (wink)
Love,
Caz
Hi Gomer,
Is that as in Homer's brother or as in Joseph? (d'oh!)
A whingebag is for putting whingers in I guess.
SO WATCH OUT, Cazziemae is about and I'm looking for a large bag as we speak! (wink wink)
Love,
Cazziemae |
Author: Christopher George
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 08:27 am | | Greetings, Caroline:
Whingebags? Us? We happy few, we indefatigable seekers after the truth? :-)
You are exactly right that many of us are pursing our "own particular Jack the Ripper solution" and that their suspect may not prove to be Jack any more than Maybrick was. I would hope, though, that you are not a defender of forgery, sham, and shoddy research.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 10:53 am | | Absolutely Chris!
Does anyone think of Feldy as anything BUT a shoddy researcher? He seemed absolutely tireless in his (shoddy re)search for the truth, didn't he? Years down the line, his misplaced energy and over-enthusiasm have done him no credit whatsoever, and I believe he has had no end of difficulties, of a personal and financial nature, to add to his woes.
I also think he was very silly to pursue the idea that Anne was related to the Maybricks somehow. This was research at its very worst, when he had already made up his own mind that the diary had to be Maybrick's own work. Once he tried to make the Graham family connection stick, unsuccessfully in my book, there was no way back for him to reassess the diary objectively. Oh, how I wish someone else had gotten to that diary first!
I certainly feel the diary has brought more ill luck in its wake than good fortune to date, with reputations on the line every 5 minutes it seems.
I have never consciously been a defender of criminal activities of any kind, I can assure you. If the thing can be proved beyond doubt to be a modern forgery, I will be the first to go round and thump someone for causing such disruption to ripperology, and such grief indirectly to the likes of Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison, all of whom I firmly believe to be good honest people, and not the 'gullible fools' some would paint them. Even this would not make them 'bad' people, surely?
And I don't believe Anne Graham to be a cold, hard, manipulative woman until I see the proof. Innocent until proved guilty. ALWAYS. She strikes me as more victim than villainess, although, as Peter Birchwood says, I don't know her. I do know she has suffered abuse in her personal life, and her efforts to defuse domestic 'situations' are most likely similar to countless others. An abused person will lie sometimes to protect their nearest and dearest, and to preserve the dignity of the household. The lies will not be seen as honourable, but for those who have experienced abuse, they are sometimes understandable, and not necessarily an indication of a congenital liar. We have yet to sift the lies from the truth, but do we have the right to assume Anne NEVER told the truth about the diary origins? Who can make that final judgement and condemn all those who disagree with it? Not me. Not you. Not Peter. (sorry Peter :-)) But you get my drift.
If there is the remotest possibility that the diary is an old forgery, then aren't we jumping the gun with all this condemnation stuff? That's all I'm asking. Until the final proof is forthcoming, from whatever source, what's wrong with making a film about the diary story? I just think they are missing out on the terrific ending I would write :-):-)
BTW, I still think I am one of those 'indefatigable seekers after the truth', but I also think modern skulduggery has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law. Without that, we know that civilisation breaks down, and then we get what we deserve here on the Casebook, namely uncivilised behaviour, not to mention lousy manners (present company excepted :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 12:18 pm | | Hi, Caz:
Well spoken. I am glad we on the same side in seeing that the "truth will out." I am looking forward to meeting you at our upcoming conference in Park Ridge, New Jersey, April 8-9, 2000. There should be plenty of fun, all the way from discussion of the Diary and the Royal conspiracy theories to Andy Aliffe's "Footlights, Felons, and a Funeral," presented as an after-dinner entertainment at the dinner to honor Paul Begg, and a lot of other topics besides. Want to present a paper on Weedon Grossmith? You have until the deadline of October 1 to send us a paper proposal. As you probably know, the Casebook Productions website with details on the conference and other CP projects such as our quarterly newsletter "Ripper Notes" is at http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Karoline
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 02:01 pm | | Hi all:
I guess the question is one of credibility. In that good old court of law we keep hearing about, then the 'character' of any witness is considered of as much importance as what the witness is saying. Their credibility depends on their being able to show that they are truthful and honest. A witness who repeatedly changes their story, who has by their own admission lied repeatedly, for whatever reason, is obviously a witness of low credibility. If such a person can lie once or twice, then they can presumably lie again. If a witness to a murder could be shown to have changed her accountof relevant events three times, would we feel safe in convicting the defendent on the basis of her (current) word? I don't think so. The person is a proven liar, and the assumption must be that there is a high probability that she is still lying now.
Likewise; since the key person in this 'diary' business can be shown, by her own admission to have lied repeatedly about how and when and where she acquired this artefact, then can we really justify a belief in its authenticity based solely on her testimony? She is a proven teller of untruths. Of course she MIGHT now be telling the absolute truth, but the presumption must be, absent any other evidence, that she is not.
Is this maybe what Peter means by the 'characters' of those concerned being of paramount importance?
By the same token - maybe the tactics and conduct of all the primary beneficiaries of this 'diary' should be scrutinised.
Isn't the fact that Feldman apparently threatened innocent people with legal action, and generally employed the tactics of the bully to try and silence all his critics, just as important to an assessment of his credibility as his famous sloppy research? Aren't we entitled to look at the methods he has used and decide for ourselves what this might say about him and his associates?
I guess it's undeniable that this 'diary' has made certain people a lot of money. And if it is to continue to make these people money in the future then it has to retain some small shred of credibility.
Back in the early 90s, didn't the Sunday Times pay very handsomely for an 'exclusive' on this 'diary'. But, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), when the suspicions of fraud surfaced, the paper decided the 'diary' was a fake, and sued the Barretts and others to recover their money. I think the courts decided in the paper's favour and every penny of that money had to be returned.
The suspicion of fraud also (I believe) lost the 'diary-people' a lucrative film-contract.
It's not difficult to see then that the question of this 'diary's' authenticity isn't just a matter of academic interest. For the people at the centre, it's a question of serious serious money. They have a vested interest in preventing the thing being dismissed out of hand as a fraud. They have a vested interest in keeping the item and the debate alive. This is't suggesting they're dishonest. Of course not. But it's pure and understandable human nature, if they are less objective than those people who have nothing to lose either way.
We have to recognise their inevitable partiality, just as we recognise, Ms Graham's previous falsehoods and mr Feldman's less than proper methodologies. And if things go beyond that into open lies, character-assassinations and corruption, I guess we have to recognise that too.
Is this a reasonable point of view?
love to all
Karoline |
Author: Caz
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 08:30 am | | Hi Karoline,
On the surface, some of your points do seem reasonable. But you just said that 'The suspicion of fraud also (I believe) lost the 'diary-people' a lucrative film-contract.' That sounds like a bit of a contradiction, if you are then saying people stand to make a lot more money in the future. They could only do so, surely, if something ELSE or NEW comes forward to support the diary's credibility in some way, either as an old forgery or the real thing.
On the basis of the diary 'evidence' as we currently know it, correct me if I'm wrong, but no more serious money IS likely to be made, is it, especially if the thing whiffs to high heaven of modern fakery? (And the self-righteous 'anti-diary' lot would therefore need to have no misgivings about ethics etc, so long as you are not gonna lose out on any possible 'gravy train' :-) :-)) Feldman was certainly broken financially by years of diary mania, and neither Shirley nor Mike are 'made of money' by anyone's standards.
As for Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and, dare I say it in the same breath, the likes of me and Dela, we are simply interested bystanders with differing views on the diary, making no money whatsoever, but keen on learning the truth WHATEVER that turns out to be.
You make a good but obvious point (if I may say so) about witness credibility, in that one could never safely convict someone of a crime on the sole basis of one unreliable testimony.
However, Anne Graham is not a character witness for someone else's supposed crime here. As I see it, she has been careful about dealing with certain questions about the diary origins at certain times (possibly with thought to her and her daughter's physical and emotional security uppermost in her mind), and decided to give her 'answers' (true or otherwise) further down the line when she felt she had no choice. The whole diary issue cost her dearly, her marriage broke down (though it may have been doomed anyway) and she has been thrust into the public eye in a most undignified manner. IF she has been lying through her teeth to make a fast buck, she has not come up smelling of roses, neither do I envy her position, rich or not. IF it turns out that the diary WAS in her Dad's house all those years, a lot of people have already convicted her and thrown away the key. THAT was why I chose to liken the case to one in a court of law.
IMHO, NO ONE has yet been proved to have created a modern forgery to make money under false pretences, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The police didn't pursue it, did they? And if they had, they would have had to PROVE their case. So what gives anyone here the God-given right to condemn any of the diary people, then say the onus is not on the same anti-diarists to supply the proof of forgery? Why the contradiction? I don't get it.
Oh and by the way, my own personal views on the diary, and subsequent research findings, have nothing much to do with Anne Graham or what she has said about it. So IMHO I don't feel the diary issue hinges on her character at all. She could be Lady Macbeth and the diary content is still there to be assessed. This is what I have tried to do. I am sadly not in the best position to explore the provenance angle.
Hi Chris!
I may well take you up on that Weedon paper. I spoke to Andy Aliffe on Saturday, and he wants to include some of my stuff in his talk! I'm honoured! But I can't do public speaking for toffee, so I hope that won't be expected of me.
We discussed getting together after Andy's 'entertainment' to do a 'Curryoke' version of Bohemian Rhapsody. Paul Begg is up for it (if his testimonials are left intact!), and Jules, Edana and I could try out some harmonising. I know VT Newbie (Carole) can sing.....Should be a blast! :-)
(I was only kidding with that last paragraph, don't panic!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 01:04 pm | | Caz -
I guess after the stuff I've been receiving from Scrappy and Joseph, then being told my points are reasonable on the surface(reminds me of my old days as an artists model!), must count as a compliment, so I thank you for it. It's a little peeving however to realize that I came across as such an intellectual lightweight. Maybe if I try again you'll see there is a little bit more depth to some of the things I say.
Re. the character of witnesses. I just think the fact that the one person who is now central to this diary's credibility has lied by her own admission and repeatedly, must obviously cast doubt on anything she says about its provenance. No, of course it doesn't prove that Anne is lying now or that she personally forged the thing, but it must be seen, by any reasonable person, to make that possibility more likely.
Yes?
Re. the 'financial motive'. It's undeniably true that several of the people at the centre of the 'diary' have made quite large amounts of money out of it, and if a movie ever does get produced, they will all stand to make more money again. Therefore, they can't be classed as entirely objective sources. They have a motive for wanting to believe that the thing is genuine, and for wanting to persuade others to agree with them. This doesn't have to involve deliberate corruption or deception, just the inevitable human preparedness to believe what is most advantageous rather than what is most likely.
That's all.
Re. 'personalities'. I don't think Paul or Keith would describe themselves as 'bystanders', since they have both been retained as paid researchers or advisers to the 'diary camp', since the artefact first appeared.
I wouldn't dream of condemning or criticising them for that.
Recognising a potential bias in any researcher doesn't equate with dismissing everything they have to say. Paul, Keith, Feldy Shirley, all have things to contribute, just as have the 'anti-diarists'. But when we listen to any of them, we should all be aware of where they are coming from.
Many of the pro-diary people have financial motives, or other vested interests in believing in this thing. Others have different agendas. You for example contend that Weedon Grossmith forged the diary to frame James Maybrick, and therefore you have a vested interest in believing the diary is an old forgery. This doesn't make your point of view necessarily wrong, but it does mean we all have to recognise your personal bias. Others again want or need to believe that the thing is a modern forgery, and they have their prejudices too.
But there are other completely objective researchers - like Chris George, CMD, Alex Chisholm who have concluded the diary is a forgery, not through any need to believe but because the balance of probablity makes this the most likely option. The methodology of historical research requires us to assume the thing is fake until proven otherwise. This proof hasn't appeared yet, indeed there is considerable evidence to suggest that the thing is simply not genuine.
Therefore the position of any unbiased party must - at the moment - be that the 'diary' is a presumed forgery. If new evidence emerges, this position might have to be modified, but so far such new evidence has not emerged.
So, while I do sympathise with anyone's need to believe, and while I recognise that there is an outside chance that either you or Feldy might turn out to be correct, I don't think it's fair to dismiss Chris George, Stewart Evans, CMD, Alex Chisholm, Philip Sugden, Don Rumbelow, Melvin Harris and all the other well respected disbelievers as 'self-righteous' merely because they prefer proper methodology over more subjective lines of reasoning.
Is this any better, Caz?
love to all
Karoline |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 05:22 pm | | Wonderful Karoline,
Probably one of your most objective posts to date. Blimey! I paid you another compliment :-)
It's slightly off-putting to be lumped next to Feldy as the two outside chances though. Thanks a bunch girl :-) Mind you, when outside chances romp home....
Don't forget that bias has to begin at some point, and my 'bias' began when Weedon jumped out at me and refused to budge! I had no preconceptions to begin with, and I will swear to my dying day that I read the diary facsimile and transcript with a completely open mind because I had no idea what it was. (I never take anyone's word for anything :-))
As for vested interests, I don't wear a vest :-) No, seriously, I have none really. I'm fully expecting someone (even me!) to come up with a cast-iron alibi for Weedy which will let the bugger off the hook. He seems to fit too perfectly at present, but I've never wanted to see an innocent man charged with such phenomenal crimes. You don't have to believe me on this one, I'll let you off if you don't :-)
And I would never dream of including most of your above names in my 'self-righteous' bunch, I always speak as I find, but to name actual names would only start fires blazing again, so I hope you'll forgive my reticence. Perhaps I should not have used the term if I wasn't prepared to do so.
Am I forgiven girl?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 12:45 am | | G'day everyone.
Karoline, be careful with the depth with which you go into things, remember that there's some of us blokes out here and a lot of stuff goes over our heads.
But fair dinkum mate, I've found your posts at times to be pretty analytical and thought provoking. As far as being an 'intellectual lightweight', fair dinkum mate, don't worry about it. Comments like those are usually made by people who think they impress others by using the whole alphabet to create a word when a 5 lettered one say's the same thing.
I think it's pretty important to remember that there's people out there who have not had the benefit of an education (as such) but these people are just as valuable to these boards as everyone else, so by keeping things in easy-to-read terms helps everyone.
Jules |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 02:36 am | | Hey Jules,
I don't think the words 'intellectual lightweight' were used except by Karoline herself in her last post, as her perception of her previous post. This was no one else's opinion, even if it came across that way.
It is fairly obvious that there are some great brains ticking away on these boards, including Karoline's, but any debate will always IMPLY some sort of criticism of the thoughts expressed. It all depends on how seriously we choose to take that criticism.
As you so rightly point out, the simpler the post, the more people listening in can grasp what goes down and enjoy the subject, even daring to put their own views forward (to be shouted down usually! :-))
But even simple posts can be up for misinterpretations, so we do have a collective responsibility for adding smiley faces or whatever to show we are at least TRYING to be kind and constructive when we post, and are not simply in it to gain points over other posters. We can only keep reiterating that point if we feel other people's perceptions of us are askew.
Reiterating ad nauseam :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 07:30 am | | Hi Karoline
Forgive me, but it seems to me that you are a tad preoccupied with the idea that money was and is a motive with the "Diary". You are absolutely right to point out the lure that filthy lucre can have, but may I ask what evidence, if any, you have that it has been or is a motive for anyone except Mike Barrett (who's admitted he forged the "Diary" for money)? Any suggestion that money has played a part in the actions of others (except Smith Gryphon, which was a business anyway) seems to me to be a subjective line of reasoning. The mere presence of money, even lots of money, doesn't automatically mean that people sacrifice their objectivity. Both Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison could believe wholeheartedly in their thesis and be motivated by nothing more than the desire to present their perspective of the evidence and have their belief proved right. Money could be incidental - admittedly a nice incidental - but not in the least motivational.
Again, you are absolutely right in saying that Anne Graham could be lying. But why are you making this point? I mean, you are completely correct in what you say, but I am not aware that anyone has ever thought differently. Nobody ever simply accepted it as true (not even Paul Feldman, as I can attest because he telephoned me immediately after the meeting with Anne) and what you say is why some people, notably Keith Skinner, have tried to objectively question and test her story (and test Mike Barrett's alternative account!). Keith believes Anne, of course, but his belief is based on years of questioning and observing and testing (dare I say, unlike the 'respected disbelievers'). He may be wrong and maybe he has lost his objectivity (though Keith thinks his objectivity is intact and has asked for examples from those who think otherwise), but so far he is one of the few and perhaps the only person who has formed an opinion after long-term contact. Is his opinion without value?
Likewise, it is perfectly true that Feldman threatened legal action, but do you know why he did it? Do you know why he did any of the things ascribed to him? I'm not saying he was right, but have you walked in his shoes, seen things from his perspective? And what do you mean by his 'famous sloppy research'? Was his research wrong, misdirected, incomplete, insufficient? If so, why? Or by 'research', do you mean his interpretation and presentation of the material he gathered?
As far as I my understanding is concerned, your account of the Sunday Times affair is wrong. According to The Sunday Times itself (19th September 1993) the publisher settled out of court.
In retrospect it all looks like a storm in a teacup. The Sunday Times paid £5,000 for an option to take up the serial rights of Shirley Harrison's book and signed a confidentiality agreement which prevented them from revealing anything about the book prior to publication. They investigated the "Diary" and concluded that it was a forgery. On July 20 the newspaper issued a High Court writ, on July 29 passed all its information over to the Metropolitan Police and in early August a Judge ordered that the trial should be before the book's publication date of October 7. Realising that a High Court trial was prohibitively expensive and being only a month or so away from publication, the publishers decided that their only option was to return the £5,000 to The Sunday Times. They also agreed to pay a nominal amount £1,500?towards legal fees. So nothing went to court and no monies were ordered to be returned. And the investigation by the Metropolitan Police? The publisher was cleared of fraud!
Finally, what do you mean by 'bystander'. Yes, I advised both Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman and I was paid for the work I did. When you write: 'we should all be aware of where they are coming from', what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that somehow I am not 'a completely objective researcher'? I wonder because you list Chris George, CMD, and Alex Chisholm as 'completely objective researchers...who have concluded that the diary is a forgery'. Well, I concluded that the "Diary" is a forgery too. So, too, did Keith Skinner and Martin Fido. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 08:51 am | | Paul -
Both Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison could believe wholeheartedly in their thesis and be motivated by nothing more than the desire to present their perspective of the evidence and have their belief proved right.
you write. The distinction between possibility and probability has been debated elsewhere on these boards recently, and whilst this scenario is certainly possible, I would suggest that other factors render a more complicated explanation probable. Surely both of these individuals should more correctly be grouped together with Smith Gryphon in so far as they both, beyond their personal convictions, have clear business interests in place here too. Both are professional writers, and both, in common with yourself, have a need to earn a living from their writings and associated ventures. No-one could reasonably criticise them for this. But let us not forget that Mrs. Harrison admits to having little or no knowledge of, or interest in, the subject prior to receipt of the commission to write her "Diary" commentary. And Mr. Feldman tells us:
By the summer of 1992...I found myself starting up in business all over again, and Jack the Ripper had been identified by me as a worthwhile project.
Jack the Ripper - The Final Chapter, hardback edition, p.2.
I could not presume to question the sincerity of these people's belief in the authenticity of the "Diary". However, I do not think we can dismiss out of hand the fact that they also have a financial interest in not allowing their theses to be discredited, with the likely loss of sales which might result.
Regards
Guy |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 09:07 am | | Guy,
You wrote:
"However, I do not think we can dismiss out of hand the fact that they also have a financial interest in not allowing their theses to be discredited, with the likely loss of sales which might result."
How do the likes of Feldman and Harrison differ from the anti-diarists who also have their theses and books for publication? Do they not also have a financial interest?
Dela |
|
|
|
|
