Archive through June 14, 1999

** 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 14, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Thoughts on the diary: Archive through June 14, 1999

Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 10:16 am
Matthew - If any of the anti-diary writers were to base a book on the premise that the "Diary" is a forgery, then yes, I think the same points would apply. So far, however, the only works which take this artefact as their central subject matter are those of Harrison and Feldman, and it is for that reason, and that reason only, that I named only those two. Of the "antis", only Melvin Harris has given any noticeable amount of space in his work to the subject of the "Diary",(I do not think Phil Sugden's brief comments are substantial enough to be considered in this context), and that is only in a comparatively short appendix to a book which deals essentially with an entirely different subject. I would say then, that Melvin is at greater risk of being discredited by someone who might prove his D'Onston thesis to be wrong. I wasn't choosing to question "pro-Diary" authors merely because of their stance, but because, as I see it, nobody else - from either side - has to date put themselves in quite the same position of vulnerability to conflicting pressures. All the Best Guy
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 10:51 am
Hi Guy Your points are excellent, but my question really concerns whether or not these people have sacrificed their objectivity - or honesty - for money. Are they knowingly, witingly purposefully peddling what they know to be trash in return for folding readies? My point, I suppose, is that even if Shirley Harrison recognised in the "Diary" the potential for a best-seller and even as a lucrative movie deal, does that mean she threw her honesty out of the window? Did she write the revised edition of her book only because she knew it would make her money? Does she defend herself and her books only because there is a financial benefit from doing so? In my view just because you make money from something doesn't mean you can't be honestly believe in it.
Author: Karoline Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 12:49 pm
Hi Paul - thanks for your response. If you check my original post, and Caz's that precedes it I think you'll find a) the origin of my 'bystanders' quote, and b) the wonderful news that I totally agree with you! Of course, making money out of a project doesn't automatically make a person dishonest. But it does, inevitably, threaten their objectivity. When we listen to the comments of Shirley, Feldy and Anne Graham, we must keep in mind that they are powerfully motivated to say what they say, to believe in the diary and to persuade others to believe in it too. Of course this doesn't mean that what they say is automatically untrue, but it does make that possibility much much greater, than if they stood to gain or lose nothing at all. It's just commonsensical, really. I think what makes the comments of people like Alex and Chris G. particularly important is that they have no 'side', no corner to fight, no suspect to defend. They think the thing is a modern fake. And this is the nearest thing to an entirely objective opinion currently available anywhere. Of course they might still be wrong. But as the evidence stands right now, it looks unlikely. love to all Karoline
Author: Peter Birchwood Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 01:15 pm
Paul: Professional writers need to make money. Not for any bad reasons but to pay their bills. It helps if they believe the truth of what they are writing about and I'm sure that Shirley(to whom I've spoken) and Feldy(Incommunicado) both believed in their theories. Now it's all very well to go on about "subjective lines of reasoning" etc. but this is again fluff. Money- the need to earn a living- is paramount in most peoples mind and I suspect in the minds of professional writers more than some. Please remember also that according to Shirley, one of the clauses in her contract says that if the diary is proved fraudulent, she has to give the money back. And that applies to her co-writers: Ann Graham and Mike Barrett. If you found undeniable evidence that Kosminski could not be the ripper, would you return all your royalties? Keith's objectivity: If you are investigating someone who has profitted from what may be a forgery (see Shirley's post about Mike making enough from his first year's royalties to be able to pay off his mortgage and then remember that Ann gets half of Mike's share) the it is, to say the least, dangerous to get to close to that person. Keith has already said that he has "formed a friendship" with Ann. He lost his objectivity as soon as he did that. His opinion about her honesty is, of necessity, biased. Both you and Keith have given opinions about Feldman's research. Those opinions have been critical. His genealogical work was very sloppy no matter who did it for him. Lastly, can you say "The publisher was cleared of fraud!" when there was no criminal case? The civil case was settled by release of the gagging arrangements and return of monies plus costs to the Sunday Times.
Author: Christopher George Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 01:34 pm
Hi folks: I am glad that Karoline thinks that the likes of myself and Alex Chisholm are objective observers. Hey, as I have observed on this site before, I believe on the old message boards, I would be DELIGHTED if James Maybrick could be proven to be Jack the Ripper. I am from Liverpool (as an old sea shanty goes, "Liverpool born and bred, Thick in the arm and thick in the head"!!!!). James Maybrick was from Liverpool, and his wife Florence was from there too, by way of Mobile, Alabama. The Maybricks lived in Aigburth, just down the road from where I used to live on Aigburth Hall Avenue, so I would be pleased as punch if James did turn out to be the Ripper. It is just that all the indications, from the questionable diary to the questionable watch, and the lack of any other evidence that might support him being the Whitechapel murderer, make it extremely likely that he was Jack the Ripper. I would LOVE to be proven wrong but if I were a betting man I would have to say one would have to lay very long odds on him having been the murderer. Chris George
Author: Karoline Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 02:49 pm
Chris - I totally agree. it would be incredibly neat if the whole story was true. Our town would be not just home to the Beatles, AND the best football team in the world, but also to Jack the Ripper! When I read Shirley's book, I almost wanted to believe her - but I just couldn't quite get there. If only the Poste House had really been there, and the handwriting looked just a little bit like Maybrick's, (or even just looked Victorian), and there wasn't that near-verbatim quote from a police report that wasn't published until the late 1980s. I've just been listening to the 1995 radio interviews with Feldy, Anne Graham, Shirley and Mike Barrett. Very interesting. I was wondering how many other people here have heard them. They're better than a soap. You end up (as with Shirley's book), wanting so much to believe them all, they seem such nice people. If ONLY they could give a really good explanation for all the things that make the 'diary' look phoney. But having listened to several tape-hours of their talk, I really don't think they can. Just to take one tiny thing - imagine an intelligent woman like Anne Graham finding an old diary signed 'Jack the Ripper', thinking 'boring', and just putting it away again for twenty years! It just doesn't work does it, however you look at it? Pity. By the way, what happened to this crucifix that Feldy thought might have belonged to MJK? love Karoline
Author: Villon Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 05:33 pm
Strange notions you Scousers have of what constitutes something to be proud of - I don't think I'd be so anxious to claim Jack the Ripper for Cornwall. And as for the Montague Druitt theory - a public school man and a cricketer? Unthinkable! (For one thing, being an English cricketer, if he'd ever tried to knife anyone he'd only have stabbed himself in the foot. I'm sure the Aussie contingent will confirm.) Promise to be relevant next time. Mike
Author: Julian Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 07:06 pm
G'day Mike, Confirmation confirmed mate. It's probably just as well that the English team didn't have to play the Scottish one. That would have been VERY embarrassing for them. Jules (Yeah, I'll try and keep it relavent next time, but no promises)
Author: Edana Thursday, 10 June 1999 - 08:25 am
Here I am piping up on this board, most probably regretfully. Karoline, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Any intelligent (or even semi-intelligent)person finding a diary signed Jack The Ripper wouldn't pack it away, but would read it from cover to cover and if themselves convinced it was genuine, would shout to the world about it. Edana
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 11 June 1999 - 06:21 am
Peter - What you say about professional writers is true and of course people can be and are corrupted by money. Nobody denies that. But the question is whether or not Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman were and are corrupted and motivated by money? Did Paul Feldman write his book because he hoped to make pots of money or because he wanted to get what he believed to be true into print? If you write something that is wrong and you know it is wrong then you are lying. If you write something that is wrong but you think it is correct then you are simply guilty of error. Which are Shirley and Paul? As far as Robert Smith is concerned, you would be correct in the strict technical sense, but The Sunday Times handed their material over to Scotland Yard and investigations were undertaken. No action was taken against Robert Smith and the case was closed. He wasn't proven innocent of fraud, but don't the courts have to prove guilt?
Author: Guy Hatton Friday, 11 June 1999 - 07:14 am
Paul - Once again, perhaps the question is not so clear-cut. A further element needs to be added to the calculation : If you write something which you think is correct, are presented with evidence that it is, in fact, incorrect, and yet choose not to amend it in the course of preparing a revised edition of your book, are you still guilty of error, or have you become a liar? This surely is the crux of many of Melvin Harris' objections to the Harrison/Feldman position (though I realise that he also makes the more serious accusation that "facts" were also used in the first editions of these books which he claims to have effectively debunked prior to publication). If we conclude that the refusal to correct errors constitutes lying, then isn't it understandable that critics may interpret the reason as commercial interest triumphing over the pursuit of truth? And hence, that objectivity has been jettisonned? Regards Guy
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 11 June 1999 - 10:04 am
Hi Guy Yes, you certainly could safely assume that something had triumphed over the pursuit of truth, but I don't know whether you would be justified in attributing it to money. How about ignorance or self-deception? And what 'errors' haven't they corrected? Are they errors or simply differences of interpretation? Has anyone asked the authors their point of view? Or have they simply been told that they are wrong, been expected to agree and been condemned as liars or whatever when they don't do so?
Author: Peter Birchwood Friday, 11 June 1999 - 11:10 am
Paul: Why would you tack the two expressions: "corrupted and motivated by money" together? Being motivated by money in no sense implies corruption and you as a writer should know that. Surely the single distinction between a professional and an amateur is that the former works for money and the latter doesn't. Your use of the phrase is unfortunate. To answer your first question, in my opinion Shirley had a good story and hoped to make some money from it. Feldy thought he had a good story and hoped to make money from it. Let me add something to your next para: "If you write something that is wrong and you know it is wrong then you are lying" (or writing fiction)." If you write something that is wrong but you think it is correct then you are simply guilty of error." If you write something that is wrong but you think it is correct and it is subsequently corrected by another party and you refuse to correct it in subsequent editions then you are truly guilty of intellectual dishonesty and misleading your readers. And lastly, if a trial had been ordered in the diary case and Robert Smith had been found innocent of fraud then you could truly say that "The publisher was cleared of fraud!" Unfortunately there was no trial.Please, no blather about "strict technical sense." Nobody was charged, nobody was convicted, nobody was cleared. The six words above are just wrong.
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 12 June 1999 - 02:04 am
Peter - one of the problems with these boards is that discussions extend beyond their original parameters. Karoline, among various other references to money, such as �1 million film deals, wrote "Many of the pro-diary people have financial motives, or other vested interests in believing in this thing." The implication is that Shirley and Paul believe in the "Diary" because they have a financial motive for doing so. I have simply queried that implication. If you fail to make corrections then you could be accused of intellectual dishonesty and misleading your readers, but whether such an accusation can be fairly levelled surely depends on why you failed to make the corrections - because you disagreed with them? Because you didn't understand them? Because you didn't appreciate the significance? Because you ineptly forgot about them? Because you are so severely self-deluded you don't want to accept them? There are lots of reasons. Dishonesty isn't the only reason why one wants or needs to believe in something. As regards Robert Smith, I've already said you are technically and actually correct in saying that Robert Smith was not formally cleared of anything because he had not been formally charged with anything. The point, though, is that we all know that The Sunday Times handed to Scotland Yard papers on which a charge of fraud could be based and that after investigation Scotland Yard did not proceed. The stigma of guilt overhangs somebody in such circumstances, so I erroneously used the 'cleared', as did The Liverpool Post on 15th January 1994 when it headlined a story "Yard Clears Diary Publisher of Fraud".
Author: Peter Birchwood Sunday, 13 June 1999 - 11:36 am
Paul: I don't believe that your idea of an "implication...that Shirley and Paul believe in the Diary because they have a financial motive for doing so" is in any way correct. That is simply not the entire reason and I haven't said so. I have simply said that both writers wrote because of the story and because there was money in it. And there is absolutely no doubt at all that if an author writes something that is proved to be untrue and he then repeats his statement in print then that is as I said misleading and intellectually dishonest.
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 13 June 1999 - 11:54 pm
Hi Peter Let's knock this one on the head shall we? As I said, I wasn't actually commenting on anything you had said, but to remarks and statements by others who implied (or seemed to imply) that money was the primary motivation for the writing of the books and for continued belief in the arguments they present. I was interested in any evidence beyond speculation for this suggestion. Likewise, while I wholeheartedly agree that peddling false information which you know to be false is misleading and intellectually dishonest, I was simply observing that people can do this for reasons other than financial, such as not understanding what they have been told, not agreeing that the information is false, self-delusion and so on. All I was suggesting was that those people who think Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison were and are in it for a fast buck - whose number clearly does not include yourself - should provide some evidence for what is, after all, a very serious allegation.
Author: Leanne Monday, 14 June 1999 - 01:48 am
G'day all, I have been looking through the old posts on this board, trying to see if this question has already been answered. This task would take too long, so here it is: I understand that Mike says he purchased a Victorian Diary for 25 pounds, in 1992 and showed a cheque stub that just says: 'book 25 pounds'. If Anne complained that this purchase was too "expensive", then why did Mike settle for a Victorian 'scrapbook', with 20 pages missing, and no dates? Am I wrong, in believing that it was just a scrap book and 'added to' in modern times, to make it seem like a diary and to hide the original authors identity? This would explain the differing ion migration tests and why the story of it's origin keeps changing.
Author: Karoline Monday, 14 June 1999 - 02:37 am
Hi all Paul I think you might be raising the temperature unnecessarily here. All that's been said is that the people at the centre of the 'diary' can't be expected to be objective because they have too much invested - financially and psychologically - in believing it to be genuine. That's all. Really no need to get angry or fall out. Don't take offence, but I do wonder if you have a slight tendency to over-react to anything you perceive as criticism of yourself or your friends? I'm thinking of that letter to Nick Warren, threatening legal action etc. Do you think you might - just sometimes - see attacks where none are intended? I hope you don't mind me making such a suggestion. I guess we all over-react from time to time, I'm really not singling you out in any way. love to all Karoline
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 14 June 1999 - 03:37 am
Karoline. No, I don't think I see attacks where none are intended and I don't think I am over-protective of friends and associates, but I think the implication of the following is fairly unambiguous, particularly the observation that "They have a motive for wanting to believe that the thing is genuine, and for wanting to persuade others to agree with them": 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. I'm not trying to raise temperatures in the least, merely trying to point out that money is not the only possible motive for what people have done. As for that letter to Nick Warren, it was the last of several in which I attempted in vain to assure him that an extremely serious allegation was untrue. It in fact had nothing to do with the "Diary" and I have no idea why Nick ever said it was, and it was wholly and completely unrepresentative of me and my actions. Further, I have a letter from Nick which follows a meeting in which the matter was cleared up.
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 14 June 1999 - 05:35 am
Leanne - Mike claims that he purchased a red diary for �25 and that Anne paid for it by cheque. He claims that he purchased the diary between phoning the Literary Agent Doreen Montgomery and visiting her eleven days later. Anne, however, has produced a cheque stub which she claims to be for the diary and which her bank statement shows she wrote on 18th May 1992. This was one month after Mike had visited Doreen Montgomery with the "Diary" (i.e. the scrapbook). The results of the ion migration test haven't changed, but are generally considered untrustworthy.