|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:45 pm: |       |
Hi John (H),
I have few, if any, firmly held beliefs regarding the diary and watch principals, so you need speculate no further, at least where I am concerned. I will say that nothing I have learned so far contradicts the claims made by Albert and Val Johnson that they sincerely believe the watch scratches to be old, or at least don’t know them to be recent. If anyone can show them to be recent, I will happily conclude that Albert and his workmates gave similarly mistaken or dishonest accounts of the discovery, and have either been the victims of another man’s hoax or part of it. I would choose learning the truth about people over holding opinions and beliefs about them – good or bad - that are not deserved, any day of the week.
As for the Barretts, nothing I have learned so far confirms any of the claims either one has made about the diary’s journey into Mike’s hands. Neither has been straight with us, and it simply isn’t an option for me to have a firmly held belief in any one of their unsupported stories. I have to allow that either or both of them could know something that we don’t, and that’s a certainty if the diary is modern.
When I mentioned looking for alternative possibilities, I meant looking for alternative explanations for the failure of everyone who has tried to bust the diary and watch hoaxes and identify the forgers – rather than simply accepting that there has been no one smart enough to do it, despite the claims that both hoaxes are recent and anything but smart, and must have a Barrett or two behind one and a Johnson or two behind t’other.
If my ‘position’ was that the diary could be an old fake, I’m not sure how you would expect me to support it by identifying the creators. What hope would I have, when those whose stated position is fixed in modern forgery mode can’t identify the forger from the very few names in the frame?
Could you identify for me who has ‘publicly pressed’ the possibility of an old forgery, and how you felt able to judge them ‘all’ as being ‘emotionally invested’ with one or more of the principals of the case? How are you in a better position to judge such things about people, none of whom you know, than all those who have spent years making it their business to examine up close the words and behaviour of the very people who can, with a single slip, betray something about the knowledge being held back if the artefacts are modern? Since when is less knowledge about a person better than more, and more likely to lead you to the truth and let you know when you’ve arrived?
From your perspective, you have already arrived at certain conclusions about the status of diary and watch which you are happy with, while you see those who got down and dirty with everyone involved still getting nowhere. To try to make sense of this, instead of looking again at your own conclusions, and wondering if you reached them without gaining sufficient knowledge and information about the principals and their words and actions, you make another leap in your preferred darkness and assume that the reason others don’t see as clearly as you do must have something to do with them being too close and seeing too much!
Isn’t this a bit like the Barnett Bunch who think they can better judge, from this distance, what the man was all about than all those who ever knew him, or were in a position to question and examine him immediately after the Kelly murder?
I honestly can’t imagine how you go about forming any of your own opinions at all, about anyone or anything, if it’s not by building up a picture from everything you have read, seen or heard for yourself, and attempting to interpret it correctly and so make sense of it. How can having more information be a hindrance, unless the picture you already have fixed in your mind is not quite right after all? If your opinions and conclusions are sound, anything new that can be learned about the case and those most closely involved can only reinforce them for you.
I’m still working on my picture, but I hope I am not handicapped if I have more pieces to work with than you believe were necessary for yours.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
Hi All,
Keith Skinner has also been reading this thread and has sent me a couple of questions and a clarification of his own ‘position’ for John Hacker and other readers. I can either post them here, if no one has any objections, or alternatively email them privately to John.
I’ll wait until the morning before doing either.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
Caz,
Again the conversation has come full circle, back to what I see as the pointless analysis of personalities. So you'll have to excuse me if I get off your Merry go Round with these last few comments.
As I've said before, in my opinion, the mistake that you're making is that you seem to think that by interacting with people that it is somehow possible to know them or to understand their behavior. You don't. As I recall, Melvin Harris once commented on investigative detachment and how he felt that actually meeting with the principals could interferer with objectivity. At the time I thought the comment was misguided, but the more I have observed the more I can see his point.
"From your perspective, you have already arrived at certain conclusions about the status of diary and watch which you are happy with, while you see those who got down and dirty with everyone involved still getting nowhere."
To make this perfectly clear for what I hope is the last time, I don't see "getting down and dirty" with those involved as going anywhere when that "knowledge" is being used to analyze the personalities or capabilities of those involved. While I would love to have carte blanche to interrogate those involved while they're attached to a polygraph or shot full of sodium pentothal, I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. I can't read minds, and don't see any point it pursuing a path that could only lead to my own prejudices regarding their personalities influence my judgement, as it seems to have others.
"Isn’t this a bit like the Barnett Bunch who think they can better judge, from this distance, what the man was all about than all those who ever knew him, or were in a position to question and examine him immediately after the Kelly murder?"
Not in the slightest. I don't think we can know Barnett, nor do I think you can know the diary principals. The Barnett crowd is indicting him based on a subjective analysis of his personality, whereas you seem to be trying to do the opposite and use a subjective analysis of their personalities as a defense against their possible involvement. Or at the very least you are encouraging others to perform such subjective analysis.
My own tentative conclusions are drawn from actual evidence (the physical diary, the watch, the scientific reports, a close textual reading of the diary text, etc. etc. etc.) with no preconceived notions regarding what any of these people "are all about". I have no idea what they are all about. But from an examination of the evidence, it's clear that what was involved in the creation of the diary isn't beyond the capabilities of the average person. And unless the principals can OBJECTIVELY be shown to have physical or mental impairments that would prevent them from doing so, I'm not going to rule anyone out based on a subjective analysis of their personality or actions. Because no one knows what anyone else is "all about".
"I honestly can’t imagine how you go about forming any of your own opinions at all, about anyone or anything, if it’s not by building up a picture from everything you have read, seen or heard for yourself, and attempting to interpret it correctly and so make sense of it."
That's probably because I don't try to make everything fit. There are people involved in the diary saga, and people don't always make sense. We've had principals that have lied, and acted in contradictory and self-destructive ways. Even if we take the newest story at face value it still makes very little sense. Trying to form a logical picture that includes all of this information would require that we actually have a level of understanding of the people involved that it is simply not possible to achieve.
"I’m still working on my picture, but I hope I am not handicapped if I have more pieces to work with than you believe were necessary for yours."
For your sake Caz, I hope those extra pieces are the shape that you believe them to be. Because the kind of analysis you've been suggesting through the years doesn't lead to a clearer picture in my opinion. But if you ever manage to come up with a solution that makes sense of all the various questions you have asking others to answer throughout the years, I'll be the first one to offer my kudos.
Good luck with your next book, I'll be looking forward to it.
And with that, I'm outta here.
John Hacker |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 147
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
Oh just post them. As if I don't already have enough to do than to email John asking "what were the questions, what did you answer, what did he answer, what did you answer"...
And tell Keith that if he doesn't get an internet of his very own, he isn't allowed to partake in our conversations any more! It's rude to eavesdrop. Sniff.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:16 pm: | |
hi
as i don' really have an opinion i will keep this short.
you know i have a copy of this book and think it is v. good a clarfying everything.
however,
after skip reading the above may i say, i can only speculate on the facts as i understand them from the literature (ie this shirley harrison and paul feldmans books and articles and posts here attacking or supporting them). i cannot redo analyis eg on handwriting as i have no knowledge of it therefore to understand to have a position i must speculate because i do not have first hand knowledge of the facts and how they were derived.
having said all this, the possiblity of an old forgery does intrige me.
can anyone recomend any literature on psychology of serial kllers or similar things, i might be able to find it thru uni so don't worry if its obscure.
cheers
jennifer |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Hmmm... It seems the ride never ends on the diary boards. You step off, and it begins anew. I really don't want to get bogged down in an endless cycle of arguing the philosophy and methodology of pursuing the diary question...
But with that in mind :-)
Ok, one last go-round. I'd be glad to hear Keith's questions, and will answer them if at all possible. Either here on the boards or privately, whichever works best for him.
As far as his position goes, I am always intrested in hearing what he has to say.
Regards,
John |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 149
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Paul,
That was shabby logic to say the least. I don't think anyone attacked Shirley for being pro-diary. She actually wasn't attacked. what was attacked was the ludicrous idea that Maybrick would have hopped no less than three trains (not once but several times) to go and murder prostitutes in Austin. Like he had to do it there. Lousiana or somewhere on the east coast which is much more accessible is just not good enough, no he is going to hop a few trains with changeovers and layovers and blah blah...all to go to Austin so that he can neatly be tied to those murders there. Uh huh. Crass commercial reaching.
|
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Paul,
If you're interested in what peoples positions regarding the diary are and why, I suggest you purchase a copy of the Casebook CD before suggesting that they are not supporting them. (And by doing so, YOU would be supporting the Casebook.)
There are tens of thousands of lines of text, describing virtually everyones positions in exquisite detail. This has been a running debate for 5 years or more. You'll have to forgive us if we don't repost every aspect of the debate regularly so that the hangers on can keep up. It's not intentional rudeness, but basic exhaustion at going through the same points over and over and over again. We don't all have Caz's stamina I'm afraid.
Most of us also respond to polite requests to explain our positions. :-)
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Equally, some of the most damning evidence against the diary's authenticity, based on inaccuracies and anachronisms in the text, are discussed in the dissertations that are still available on this site.
One of the things I do find a bit frustrating about these discussions is that those who make a virtue of being open-minded often don't seem even to have a plausible alternative explanation for these textual difficulties.
If something is strong prima facie evidence of a hoax, and someone remains open-minded, surely he or she must have in their mind some sort of alternative explanation of the problem?
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 344
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
Paul
Like you I don't have a position on the diary as yet. I feel that before I can give an informed opinion I first need to inform myself and as such I am ploughing through as much material on the subject as I can. That will eventually include Caz's book but not so far. I have read Shirley Harrison's new one and am currently about three quarters of the way through Paul Feldman's, which I have to say I find his research fascinating but to me it throws up more questions than it provides answers.
However the point is the Shirley Harrison book, and to me the problem is not in terms of pro-diary or anti-diary, it is in terms of her decision to make a spurious connection to the Austin, Texas murders. If I were in the pro-diary camp I think I would be hopping mad about this, and if in the anti-diary I would be clapping my hands with glee, because all this does is muddy the waters and provide ammunition for the anti-diarists. The diary provides no indication whatsoever that the diarist carried out these crimes, and the only evidence for Maybrick committing them seems to be that he was on the same continent when they occurred. I'm afraid the whole thing too closely resembles Patsy Cornball's attempts to connect Walter Sickert with every unsolved murder in the UK in the time he was alive.
If James Maybrick was the Ripper, let him be the Ripper, don't try to make him somebody else as well. |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Alan and all,
I've always felt sorry for Shirley myself, and respected her work to a fair degree. Compared to many authors, she seems to have a true belief and passion for her suspect which I have always found refreshing.
Compared with most Ripper authors, she was extremely unprepared for the world she was stepping into. Additionally, she was faced with one of, if not THE most complex scenarios that any Ripper author has faced. Instead of merely coping with meager records of a man long dead, and theorizing to fill in the gaps she had to deal with a host of issues, including, but not limited to:
Several living and apparently unstable persons that formed an ever shifting provenance for the diary, full of confessions and revelations. Some of whom are still changing their story to this day.
A number of advisors and consultants who were hardly in agreement regarding the diary.
Analysis in a number of scientific fields including chemical anlaysis, ion migration, aresenic poisoning, and microscopic examination of metal.
A document that needed to be analyzed for historical inconsistancies, and consistency with the documented life of James Maybrick and the known facts about Jack the Ripper.
The psychological side of the diary, and that of serial killers in general.
The problems inherent in analysing the handwriting of the document.
The complex history of Florrie Maybrick and her trial which is a complete subject unto itself.
An extremely well informed community of authors and hobbyists who know the case backwards and forwards, and were quick to point out her missteps.
She certainly did not have an easy job of it, and I think she did the best job she could under the circumstances. But having said that, the I don't think that the latest "revelation" fills the "anti-diary" camp with any sort of glee. I really found it more sad than anything that rather than attempting to add to our knowledge of the document, or to find more evidence to support or dismiss it she has apparently joined the more speculative crowd who'll tie their suspect to any vague connection they can find. And considering that the supposed Ammerican Connection receives a scant 8 pages in her new book, and the somewhat tepid enthusiasm she showed in her post regarding the books marketing, it does seem somewhat more of a commercialized effort to me rather than the passionate belief that drove her earlier work.
I certainly don't feel like clapping my hands with glee. (Although there is a component of gotta laugh or cry there)
And of course now I'll have to make space for a 4th copy of Shirley's book on my already overflowing diary shelf. :-(
Regards,
John Hacker
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hi Ally,
Keith has seen your post and has decided to stay off the boards. And do get yourself a hankie. It’s rude to keep sniffing like that.
Hi John (H),
I’ll email you shortly with Keith’s comments. They include a lot of what I wanted to express to you myself so the readers will be spared at least one long post by me!
We’re obviously never going to agree on this one. Interviewing the people who are suspected of involvement in an elaborate forgery (ok, if not elaborate, one that I’m sure you agree took more than a wet weekend in Liverpool with a couple of reference books, a bottle of ink, pen and an old scrapbook to conceive and execute) is just one aspect of an investigation into the origins of a questioned document. I would say an essential aspect, regardless of what the scientists and historians are able to tell us.
It is by no means all about judging personalities, honesty and dishonesty, or even capability, although I believe capability has to be important if certain individuals are suspected of composing the diary. (Would you honestly say that a teacher, for example, can’t judge when Tommy Brown has written another story, like the ones he has been churning out all year, or when he hands in another boy’s work, claiming it as his own?) The major reason for talking to those involved is to get first-hand accounts that can be questioned, examined and tested against all the known facts. We can look for contradictions, things that don’t add up, unintentional admissions, that sort of thing. It all helps to build up a picture of what can be confirmed, what can’t, and what we know to be false. Then we can try to find reasons why someone has made a mistake or lied in their testimony.
If the scientists and historians can’t agree on when the diary and watch were created, we have nothing else to go on, and it’s always possible that one of the suspects, assuming they know something that could help date it for us, will one day give themselves away and say something that can be independently verified.
If, on the other hand, the scientists and historians could prove to everyone’s satisfaction that the things were faked in the late 1980s/early 1990s, wouldn’t people then want to know, and expect to be told, as much as possible about the few individuals who must have included the hoaxers? Even a modern hoax will one day be ancient history, with its own story to be told to our grandchildren about the who, the how and the why, and how it all ended.
You say that no one knows what anyone else is or isn’t capable of. Yet you say it’s ‘clear’ the ‘average person’ could have written the diary. How did you compare the writing of the diary author with that of an average person, and judge the latter capable of being the former, if no one can judge such things from anyone’s writing, be they known individuals or anonymous Mr. Averages?
Everything you read, whether it’s the diary itself, the scientific reports, or the ripper and Maybrick histories, has been written by human beings of varying capabilities. You must have had to judge those capabilities at every turn, simply in order to decide for yourself how much of what you read was reliable, factual, qualified, error-free, accurately transcribed, sincere, honest, objective - you name it. So how do you ever know for certain when you have read something that you know you can truly believe in? But we all have to do it, John. It’s called using our brains to analyse incoming information and judge what may be useful to us – whatever the information, from whatever source.
I just hope my extra pieces lead towards the truth rather than away from it. I don’t care what shape they are if they fit without a shoehorn. But if they fit, you can’t take them out again if you don’t like them or the resulting picture.
Love,
Caz
PS Can anyone direct me to the post by ‘Paul’ everyone is referring to please? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.
PPS Ah, as you were, I just found Paul in the archives. Hi Paul. 
(Message edited by Caz on January 15, 2004) |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Caz,
I agree we're not going to agree on this one, which is cool by me. If I started to agree with everyone I'd worry myself.
I do agree that the story of the diary principals will make for an interesting tale for later generations once the authenticity questions have been put behind us. I hope I can look forward to an updated version of your book at that time to put it all into perspective.
I'll be looking forward to reading Keith's comments.
Regards,
John
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 168
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:02 am: | |
I still think Chris Phillips is on to" a nice little earner': a book on the various (alleged) hoaxes concerning JTR theories.
All these hoaxes have done is fill the coffers of the various publishers who continue to urge writers and researchers towards previously unconsidered suspects.
To mix metaphors, this paints Ripper writers into a bit of a corner.The only way they will have their theories comtemplated by publishers is if they advance more highly coloured theories often involving other English speaking continents.
IMHO most hungry publishers wouldn't even countenance a book on Donald Rumbelow's theoretical likely suspect: a nobody named "Who?".
Please Note:
This writer's disclaimer:I am merely voicing a general opinion here and an not thinking of any particular past author in these comments.
Long live the "vertiginous leapers". |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Hi, Caz:
You wrote--
"The major reason for talking to those involved is to get first-hand accounts that can be questioned, examined and tested against all the known facts. We can look for contradictions, things that don’t add up, unintentional admissions, that sort of thing. It all helps to build up a picture of what can be confirmed, what can’t, and what we know to be false. Then we can try to find reasons why someone has made a mistake or lied in their testimony."
Although I have the feeling that the debate over the Maybrick Diary has degenerated into one of going round and round the mulberry bush and, as we have stated before, what we really need is new data, I am struck by your words because I should think that in the Barrett/Graham "testimony" and actions concerning the Diary, we see a classic case of "contradictions, things that don’t add up, unintentional admissions, that sort of thing."
Again, by my making this observation, it takes us no further on. However, if the Barretts, Mike and his former wife now known as Anne Graham, did not have anything to do with forging the Diary, there are a lot of statements made and actions for which they are responsible that seem unsatisfactory and suspicious. I am talking about the purchase of the little red 1891 Diary, the mystery of the Sphere book and the Crashaw quote that is somehow in the Diary, and so on.
Even if it might be said that Anne said nothing about the Diary until she came out with the story that the document had been in her family for years, she was, in the beginning, by her silence, supporting the claim made by Mike that he had received the document from his drinking buddy, Tony Devereaux, in the Saddle pub, Liverpool, and that, by extension, she and Mike knew nothing about it before the handover in the pub. If, as she now says, she in fact gave the Diary to Tony to give to Mike, certainly a strange scenario, and the Diary had been in her family since 1950 or before, her claim does not make it old and nor does it make it authentic.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on January 16, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hi Chris,
Your ‘classic case’ is fine, and our book is full of examples of stuff not adding up – nothing wrong with that. If anyone is able to interpret it all and come to any final conclusions about who wrote the diary and when, and who else was involved and how, I wish them all the luck in the world.
But no one has been saying that Mike and Anne haven’t said and done things that are suspicious, have they?
And no one has been saying they had nothing to do with forging the diary either. We don’t know if they did or they didn’t, but clearly if the diary is a modern fake, one or both of them must know something they are not telling us.
And no one has claimed that Anne’s story makes the diary old or authentic. Her claims have no bearing on the diary’s status at present since they can’t be proved.
Could I ask you – have you actually read our book yet? I don’t remember Mike ever claiming that Tony handed over the diary in the Saddle pub. And when you talk of the need for ‘new data’, do you mean you found nothing new in our book that you didn’t already know, and that might have helped you decide who could have, or probably didn’t, write the diary or put the scratches in the watch?
I am still looking out for new info all the time, in case something comes up that could put an end to it all.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 16, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Hi, Caz:
Yes, you are right, Mike Barrett and Tony Devereaux knew each other from the Saddle pub but the actual handover of the parcel containing the Diary was apparently at Tony's house during one of Mike's visits to his friend after Tony broke his hip at Christmas 1990. This took place in May or June 1991 (your book, p. 5).
Shirley in her first edition of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper (Smith Gryphon p. 4), only says "a few months later" after Tony's accident:
". . . One day, a few months later, when he [Mike Barrett] arrived at Tony's house there was a parcel wrapped in brown paper on the table.
"'Take it. I want you to have it. Do something with it,' was all Tony said.
"Mike took the parcel home, and opened it with Anne. That day the Barretts' life was turned upside down. Inside they saw what appeared to be a Victorian scrapbook. . . [containing] 63 manuscript pages of the most sensational words Mike had ever read."
A pity that Keith wasn't there with his tape recorder to record the exact words at the handover because in your book, reporting on Mike's later recollection of the conversation with Tony as recorded for the Diary video by writer/director Martin Howells in September 1993, Tony's words are rendered differently--
"'Here that's for you, Mick.' When Barrett asked what it was, Devereaux said only 'Take it home and do something with it,' or so Barrett claimed."
I am making no great claim for the difference in words of an exchange that was not recorded at the moment, and only recollected later by Mike, just noticing that the different wording is interesting but probably of no consequence. Another difference is that when Mike tells of opening the parcel, said to be in Shirley's book in the presence of Anne with no mention of daughter Caroline, in the video Mike expressly says, "So I come home that day and when I come home Caroline is in the room with me. And I skipped through the pages and [when] I come to the last page, . . . there's 'Jack the Ripper' . . ."
Caz, yes I have read your book but do admit I need to read it more closely word for word, which I will do over the coming weeks.
All the best
Chris |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Well after saying that my post was going to be my one and only, I’ve got to respond now haven’t I?
Pretty much all I had to say as a reply has already been said, and much more eloquently than I could have done, by Caz.
Please don’t think I’m being disrepectful of anyones opinions on these boards, I’m not, but I do resent the suggestion that I’m some sort of a hanger on just because I am a passive reader rather than an active poster. I have been reading these boards ever since my interest in Jack was reawakened by reading Shirley Harrison’s book. I am well aware of all the regular poster’s opinions on Maybrick and the other main suspects expressed here, over much more than the couple of years I previously mentioned. Doesn’t time fly?
Perhaps it’s just that the way my mind works means I find the approach of absolute open mindedness, which I find in Caz’s posts on the Maybrick as well as other threads, connects with the way I try to make sense of things.
My point is that I, like many others I suspect, was well and truly won over by Shirley Harrison’s book when it first came out. I think that this had every bit as much to do with the high quality of the writing as the evidence it presents against maybrick as a suspect, or Maybrick as the diary writer.
My views were quickly tempered somewhat by reading Paul Feldman’s book, with it’s sometimes wild flights of fancy, and also by reading these boards.
Most recently I have read “The inside story” which I devoured in two sittings and then read again. It is the most objective of all the “Diary books” and did a great deal to put things into perspective for me. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone who has still to reach an opinion on the fascinating story of the diary so far.
I still don’t think I know enough about the diary to make my mind up either way on it. I want to believe in it as it fascinates me so much, and all I was really trying to say is that I feel some have closed their minds on it, dismissing it as modern, too soon.
I have several questions running around in my mind that I don’t recall ever having seen covered on these boards. Perhaps I will register and become a “proper” , if of necessity infrequent, poster.
Thanks again one and all
Paul
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 354
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 8:58 am: | |
Paul
Not trying to drag you on the boards again! But I have to say I have been enjoying Paul Feldman's book a great deal more than the Harrison one. I may not agree with his conclusions but I have great admiration for the book itself. As far as I can see he never once pretends to know what he does not, if he follows a line of inquiry and it goes nowhere he tells you about it, if he has a suspicion but cannot prove it he tells you that as well, the book is very honest and lays all its cards on the table. He didn't convince me that Maybrick was the Ripper, but he did convince me that I cannot conclusively say he wasn't either, and I suspect that he would be satisfied with that. I personally think this should be a template for the way any Ripper book pushing a particular candidate should be written. |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
Hi Alan
Thanks for your comments, and it seems we share a very similar position on the diary.
I actually read Feldman first, having bought it at the station at the start of a long train journey. I picked it up having remembered the Maybrick documentary I had recently watched on TV. I quickly realised I was reading the wrong book first and made a dash to Waterstones on arrival at Birmingham New street and bought Shirley Harrisons book.
I have read the both of them several times over, including the new editions, and I agree that there is a lot of great value in Feldman. My problem with it however is his occasional huge leaps of faith where his logic seems to have momentarily been replaced with wishful thinking.
The thing is that you quickly form your own image of the various characters involved in the diary “plot” and I did find that reading “The inside story” changed my views on them all to a certain extent.
I realise from reading the posts here that Maybrick as a suspect is a source of irritation to some. I for one was gutted when the Maybrick thread fizzled out just before Christmas over the “costly intercourse” debate. I am equally pleased to see that Shirley Harrisons new book seems to have reawakened the debate and I shall register as a proper user and hopefully join the debate there.
Regards……..
Paul
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Hi Chris,
Yes, if Keith had been there to record the exact words at the handover of the diary to Mike, we almost certainly wouldn’t be here now! 
Hi Paul, Alan, All,
My own experience was reading Feldman first, towards the end of 1998. I found all sorts of problems with his arguments, and thought he spent far too long telling us about avenues of his research that went nowhere, but now I’m not so sure! Anyway, I then had to get Shirley’s book to find out what the diary actually contained, and try to decide for myself who might have dunnit and when. I found I couldn’t get the story out of my head and thought it was crazy that no one appeared to have all the answers yet, some 6 years after the diary had emerged.
Paul,
If you’d like to run some of those questions by me, that you haven’t seen covered on the boards, you are most welcome to email me and if I can’t help I know a few people I can ask for you.
Love,
Caz
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi CAZ,
Just wanted to let you know that your book made its way down to Alabama, in the Good ol' USA.
I picked up a copy last night at the local bookstore and am excited about getting started on it. Congrats to you on your accomplishment.
Best to you.
Paul |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 998
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Thanks very much Paul.
I do hope you find it an enjoyable and informative romp. My co-authors and I did our best to make it as digestible as possible to as wide a range of readers as possible, although one can never hope to please everyone. And with a subject like the diary it would be a minor miracle if we pleased anyone! At least all three of us knew that much from the very start.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 4:37 am: | |
Caz,
Ive finished it !!! Got it just before Christmas but really couldnt get into it (due to other commitments consuming my time) until Mid March.
Found it hard at the begining (names, dates ect) but all of a sudden it kicked in for me.
Didnt like that character Feldy though.......totally unbelieveable !!!! 
As for Mr Barrett and Anne.....mmmmmmmm !!!
All in all it was nice to get updated. Much to my amazement I liked it.
Monty
PS Do you know if the film plans are still alive and kicking. Last I heard Jodie Foster was taking it on.......granted, that was many years ago.
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 546
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 5:34 am: | |
Caz
Sorry, still not got around to reading it. I took "The Ripper and the Royals" up the mountain because a. it's not as heavy to carry and b. I really didn't want to read it even though I knew I ought to and so figured that if it was the only book I had with me it would force me to plough through.
Anyway, revision for University exams for the next three weeks then I PROMISE it will be the next one on the agenda! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
No film plans as far as I know, but if I were a betting gal I'd bet a whole lot that one day a film of some sort is bound to happen - probably when I'm far too old and feeble to enjoy it.
Hi Alan,
No apologies needed - my daughter is still on page 9 and hubby hasn't got much past halfway! I read my daughter's copy quickly (mainly to check for all my proof reading boobs, in case another edition is ever required), but haven't a copy of my own.
Don't tell me I've got to nag you about revising too - my daughter has her GCSEs in a few weeks. Good luck and I'm sure you'll do very well. I'm afraid it's me who has to apologise for not having had enough time to respond to your emails yet. Not sure when I will get round to it now. I'll be a working girl again from next week.
Love,
Caz
X |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 609
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Hi Caz
As I recall page 9 was an arduous read. If I were you I would be more concerned that hubby only made it to page 15.
Congats on the job and don't stress about it. You'll do well.
All The Best
Gary |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 10:46 am: | |
Thanks Gary.
No computer access in the new job, but the building more than makes up for it. It's one of the oldest in town, a cottage on the main street, dating back to the 17th century. My next work session is Wednesday morning, and all the people there are lovely, despite (or we would say due to) them being in the legal profession. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page