|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Behind The Bluff
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Behind The Bluff
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 01:41 pm |        | ACTION PLEASE!
Robert Smith fails to read diligently. If I identify a statement as libellous then that in itself carries no threat whatsoever, since I am on record as stating that I do not hold with mounting libel actions at any time. But unless Smith openly states that he agrees with my stand (which I doubt) then his use of the term 'actionable' DOES carry with it an implied threat. QED. (Ref: 17 Oct-12.30 pm)
But this exchange is about something much more fundamental. It involves Smith's failure to reveal the full contents of all the tests and reports involving a faked diary and faked inscriptions on a watch. He made money from the Diary hoax and would have made much more if it had not been for some telling revelations that thwarted some of his progress. He also injected himself into the discussion of the issues, so he was not a passive provider, but someone who became answerable to the public who were taken in by some of the arguments he used.
In asking for him to make amends and now publish the reports on screen I am asking on behalf of everyone who reads these pages. In the meantime, Smith seems to be out of touch with recent developments, since we now know that there are two independent confirmations of Mike's original claim that the Sphere book "Fell open at page 184", thus revealing the poem extract. On screen both Peter Birchwood and a girlfriend of Keith Skinner have testified that the copies of Volume Two handled by them fell open at the "O costly intercourse..." lines. The lady found her copy in Liverpool; Peter found his in Welshpool, so we may well be encountering a fault common to a batch of books. A pointer in this direction is suggested by the fact that, when I asked Peter to describe the state of his pages 278-279, he reported that they were so tied together that they would not lie flat. This very same fault is found in Mike's copy. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 06:59 am | | Hi All,
I thought 'this exchange' was about Melvin's statement that Robert threatened him with legal action, and Robert's denial. If Robert merely identified a statement as actionable, in precisely the same way that Melvin identified a statement as libellous, Melvin hasn't proved his claim to have been threatened. But he has shown how silly this all is because if he truly believed he was being threatened he could have saved himself the needless anguish by checking with Robert at the time, instead of waiting so long to discover he had read too much into it and that he only imagined he was under threat.
Didn’t Robert say quite a while back that he would be delighted to see all the scientific reports put up on screen? If Melvin wants action so badly, what’s stopping him putting the full reports up himself? I’m confused.
So we 'may well be encountering a fault common to a batch of books'. If only we had a better idea of when Mike first opened his own copy of vol.2 and saw the lines, we'd be able to work out why he was opening that particular book. Was he really aiming to find a suitable poetic quote to pass on to the composer of the diary? Or was he, much later, when no one had been able to identify the 'O costly...' lines, searching specifically for them, and could he have succeeded, due to their position in each one of a 'batch of books'?
We have yet to see the documented evidence on screen that Mike knew where he could put his finger on 'O costly...' before the end of September 1994 - and certainly nothing indicating such knowledge before his June confession. And if there is nothing to prove that Mike knew about the quote all along, we are still scratching around, a decade after the diary investigation began, for anyone provably connected with its creation.
So perhaps Melvin, for the sake of everyone who reads these pages, could put this evidence on screen if it exists, along with any evidence that Mike and Anne were knowingly handling/placing a recent forgery in 1992.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:52 pm | | REPLY TO MELVIN HARRIS
I am only too aware that many people, who log on to this site are baffled and bored by Melvin’s continual retreading of his old, old grudges. I am very tempted to ignore him, but I will try to be brief.
1. As must by now be obvious from Melvin’s own account, I made no threat, implied or otherwise, to sue Melvin for libel. Why is he so desperate to suggest that I did? Of course, I am willing to state: “I do not hold with mounting libel actions at anytime”. So let’s stop that self-righteous conversation.
2. Now Melvin, please try to concentrate. I neither commissioned nor paid for any reports on the diary or the watch. But I have already provided the names of the people, who commissioned the reports and those who hold the copyright in them (ie: their authors). I have also made it quite clear, that I am very happy to see all the reports published in full on the casebook. There is nothing to hide.
So, Melvin, instead of blustering, trying to pass the buck ,and wasting your time by composing bombastic posts, why don’t you spend a couple of hours writing off for the permissions. If you really want the reports published on the internet, then how about some “Action please!”. Don’t keep on whining to me. My involvement with “The Diary of Jack the Ripper” by Shirley Harrison, ceased in 1997. If you write civilly to these people, I am sure they would all be happy to cooperate with you without charge.
3. I suggest that it is Melvin, who is “out of touch with recent developments” on Volume 2 of the Sphere History of Literature. In fact, I have recently examined two hardback copies, including the copy, which Keith’s partner opened in Liverpool. Melvin is still peddling the idea, that “we may be encountering a fault common to a batch of books”. He would have us believe, that Mike Barrett found his way to page 184 (with the ‘O costly…’ quote), because of a rare binding fault unique to a batch of Volume 2.
There is no fault. It is another Melvin myth. All books, which are sewn and bound in sections, will have glue holding the spine edge of the page at the end of each sewn section to the first page of the next section. So, especially in the middle part of a book, as you flick through it, these two pages will tend to stand up. The Sphere book is bound in sections of 16 pages. Pages 182 and 183 are examples of pages which are glued together at the spine, so that the verso pages 181 and page 184 readily present themselves. The same effect applies to Melvin’s mysterious pages 278/279 (so carefully checked with Peter Birchwood’s copy) and indeed to all the corresponding pages at 16 page intervals in between (198/199, 214/215, 230/231, 246/247 and 262/263). End of mystery. End of the faulty batch myth.
The fact that the book falls open easily at pages 181 and 184, of course, supports Mike’s claim, that he first came across the quote by looking through one of the copies in Liverpool’s Central Public Library in September 1994, and later realised he had another copy of the book in his girlfriend’s loft. If the quote had been placed in the diary by Mike in 1992 or earlier, he would certainly have used that information, to prove he had forged the diary, during his June 1994 “confession”.
4. Melvin refers to “the Diary hoax”. I published the diary in 1993, in the firm belief that it was indeed the diary of Jack the Ripper. I have since modified that view to believing that it is a genuine Victorian document, which was written by James Maybrick or someone closely associated with him, and that the writer was probably Jack the Ripper.
It is clear that, after eleven years of investigation to prove it a hoax, Melvin has very little to show for his vast investment of time and energy.
— He has commissioned no comparative analysis of the diary ink and pre-1992 Diamine ink. He says it wasn’t necessary, but a positive identification would settle the matter decisively, if it is a hoax. Instead he wasted the sample of diary ink in a test for chloroacetamide, which proved nothing about the dating.
— He has produced no handwriting samples using pre-1992 Diamine ink on paper. If he had, they could have been compared with the appearance of the ink on the diary paper. As the ink of the diary is unchanged from its first public appearances in 1992/3, samples of Diamine ink, could even if taken now, show over time whether both inks display similar fading and colour characteristics. So, why didn’t Melvin arrange these tests. I suspect Melvin knows very well, that the diary ink is not Diamine.
— Just as fatal to his case, is his failure to name any forgers, or any placers/handlers of a forgery, or even any precise evidence of how, why and when a forgery occurred. Melvin had a little flirtation with putting Gerald Kane in the frame, but that proved to be entirely unsubstantiated and untrue.
I appreciate that Melvin is frustrated and bitter with his inability to nail the diary as a hoax. However, if he is, as he claims, convinced, that he has exposed the diary as a hoax, why does he devote so much time to repeating his points over and over again on these boards. A case of, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Robert Smith |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:19 am | | Game on, Robert.
To anyone who has withstood the lengthy diatribes on this strand I ask this question:
Does this - "This very same fault is found in Mike's copy" hold water when NOBODY is allowed to see "Mike's" copy?
And on that note ...
Peter Not Melvin. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:13 pm | | | Robert--Hi. With all due respect, I think your scenerio of Mike Barrett finding the Crashaw quote while "looking through one of the copies in Liverpool's Central Library" is still somwhat of a skate on thin ice. It could be possible, of course, but there is a problem. Did Liverpool Central Library have the book? I'm getting mixed messages. Melvin was told "no", Shirley was told "yes--but in an upstairs repository", and Keith, evidently, [at a much later date] found it on the shelves. So what's the truth? The answer, it seems to me, is far from certain. Besides, it's the Sphere Guide. We not talking about War & Peace. It's pretty damn odd that Mike owned a copy. Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:20 pm | | Hi RJ,
We've been through all this before. Shirley had a fax from the library dated October 6th, 1994, of the very page containing the quote. This was within a week of Mike's revelation, on September 30th, that he had found it there.
Yes it is 'pretty damn odd' that Mike owned a copy. But we know he did. What we have yet to establish is when he first opened it at the quote - was it mid to late 1989, when he was helping an unidentified forger compose the text, or was it sometime after his June 1994 confession?
But assuming you remain adamant that the only valid 'Poste House' argument is the one that proves the diary is a modern fake, I remain confused over why you are interested in the truth about Mike's 'O costly...' discovery.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 05:12 pm | | While rereading the messages on this thread,
I was reconsidering the matter of Anderson
suddenly denying that Piggott wrote the "Parnell
Forgery", I was suddenly struck by an odd
coincidence. Two major political scandals, one
English and one French, in this period dealt with
forgeries: Parnellism and Crime from 1887 - 1889,
and the Dreyfus Affair from 1894 - 1906. In the
former, a letter supposedly from the Home Rule
Parliamentary Leader, Charles Stewart Parnell,
supported the Phoenix Park Assassinations of 1882.
In the latter, Captain Alfred Dreyfus is accused
of treason and a forged paper is produced as
proof. It turns out that an impecunious and
seedy newspaperman, Richard Pigott, forged the
letter Parnell "wrote". It turns out that the
paper used against Dreyfus was forged by Major
Hubert Henry. Neither Pigott nor Henry are ever
punished. Fleeing London, after being uncovered
by Parnell's counsel Sir Charles Russell in open
hearing, Pigott flees to Madrid and blows his
brains out in a hotel there before he can be
arrested. Major Henry is arrested, but while in
prison commits suicide.
Odd that they both died before they could reveal
anything to the public. I noticed, years ago, the
French novelist, Louis-Fernand Celine suggested
that Major Henry may have been helped in his
suicide. Possibly so was Pigott....
Jeff |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:01 am | | I still think that Mike didn't find the Crashaw quote in the library as he at first said, I think Mike genuinely asked someone at the local second hand bookstore where such a quote may come from (after his curiosity was roused by it's appearance in the diary) and that person told Mike it could be found in the Sphere guide.
Either Mike did or didn't know at this stage that he had the same Sphere guide at home - it's immaterial, because what Mike then went and did was to discover the Sphere guide and the Crashaw quote at the Liverpool library.
Thus Mike could carry on his self delusion as being the man to "unmask" Jack the Ripper.
He wanted to feel important, he wanted credit for finding the Crashaw quote and didn't want to give credit to some geezer working in a second hand bookstore, so Mike concocted the library story. But it is an undoubted fact that the Sphere guide was/is in the library.
That settles that then.
Peter |
Author: Melvin Harris
Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 03:25 pm | | SMITH'S EVASIONS AND WORSE.
There are over twenty false claims in Robert Smith's post of 15 Nov 2002-12:52 pm. How can you take such a time-waster seriously? But no amount of waffle can evade the fact that Smith has always had a moral obligation to show to the reading public every document used to promote the Diary. He has the time and a secretary. He can make this happen now. It is his responsibility not mine.
Smith is so muddled and wrong in his posts because he simply refuses to read essential texts and use logic. This is not new. Back in 1993 he claimed that the holograph Will of James Maybrick, held at Somerset House had "...legally important words...mysteriously added. One hand, maybe two, have been at work here, but not, we suggest, James Maybrick's." Now anyone who views that original Will can see at a glance that Smith's contention is impossible. There simply is no room in the identified section of the handwriting for any additions to be squeezed in! This Smith-fantasy was a desperate attempt to demolish the status of a document which, in itself, showed that the Diary was a fake. To make matters worse the foundation for this fantasy lay in an alleged transcript of the Maybrick Will found in MacDougall's book of 1891. No one able to exercise logic could have compared the two texts without seeing within minutes that MacDougall's wording had to be bogus. The third page (missing from all pro-Diary books) proves without question that the MacDougall version could never have existed. In 1995 I supplied proof to Smith that the bogus 'transcript' was nothing but a faulty copy of a newspaper report. He stayed silent.
Today Smith continues to issue misleading statements. His chatter about the nature of sewn sections in the Sphere book was well anticipated in an earlier post of mine. And there IS a batch fault quite independent of any sectional biases. The spreading of adhesive is defective. Dramatic proof of that is found between pages 438 and 439; there the spread is so erratic that the pages are tied together for about half an inch at their bases, thus the text cannot be read in full. Exactly the same fault is found in Peter Birchwood's copy. As for Smith's idea that Mike examined a LIBRARY copy that fell open at pages 181 and 184. Well, that library 'search' supposedly took place in the last week of September 94 and the discovery itself is supposed to have happened on September 30th. That is the gospel according to Mrs Harrison. But such fiction dies at once when Alan Gray confirms that Mike had ALREADY identified the book by name in the first week of September; on September 3rd to be exact. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 04:57 am | | Hi Melvin,
It almost beggars belief that MacDougall, in his apparent enthusiasm for delving into the facts of the Maybrick case, would not have thought to look at the original will of Sir Jim at any time, but instead relied on a newspaper report.
Can this really be the case?
Is there any obligation to show the reading public every document used to promote the modern hoax with the Barretts' involvement theory? And if the only evidence for this theory is the stuck-up Sphere book, and if it was named as late as September 3rd 1994 (assuming you have seen Alan Gray's documentation that confirms everything), it's all going to come unglued if you can't sew this one up over the next ten years, isn't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 02:53 pm | | REPLY TO MELVIN HARRIS (5th December, 2002)
Melvin Harris makes the bizarre suggestion that publishers have “a moral obligation to show the reading public every document used” in connection with the books they publish. In the real world, the book is the book – end of story! In any case, as I have pointed out previously, I ceased to be the publisher of the Diary in 1997. Wake up there at the back! It is also an idiotic presumption to state baldly that I have “the time”. Is he clairvoyant or sitting on my desk? As I understand that no publisher has rushed forward for some time to accept any of Mr. Harris’s book proposals, I would have thought he might have had the time himself to perform this public service, to which he appears so dedicated.
I am not evading his remarks on Maybrick’s will. It is a big subject and I would rather not bore people rigid by encouraging Melvin to use the couple of sentences I wrote nine long years ago, as a pretext for yet another long lecture on the will.
Mr “Call Me Moral” Harris continues to pretend that Volume Two of the Sphere History of Literature was defective in some way. An excess of glue between the sections in sewn hardback books is very common. The daft thing is that he (correctly) refers us to excessive glue between pages 438 and 439 as an example, and so confirms that this feature is not unique to the section with the Crashaw quote (page 184).
Mr Harris is dancing on a pin, when he claims Mike Barratt mentioned the Sphere book to Alan Gray on 3rd September 1994 . Why, after eight years, has Mr. Harris and Mr Gray had such sudden and precise recall. What documentary evidence is there for it? Even if the date were verifiable, Mike could have found the quote prior to 3rd September and waited to 30th September 1994, before he told Shirley Harrison. The undeniable fact remains that Mike didn’t use this very useful discovery when he “confessed” in June 1994 that he had written the Diary in, or before, 1992.
Mr Harris will have received (via his former publishers, Michael O’Mara Books Ltd) a letter from Mike Barrett requesting him to return his copy of the Sphere book, which he originally lent to Mr Gray. Mr. Harris clearly has “a moral obligation” to return the book to its rightful owner.
He should demonstrate his morality by stating unequivocally on this board, that he will speedily return the book to Mike Barratt, as requested in writing.
Robert Smith |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 06:04 am | | Caz,
I have just noticed your comment above about MacDougall's transcription of the Maybrick will. I have been interested in the Maybrick case, as the great murder cause celebre of 1889, for many years, dating back well before the production of the hoax 'diary'. Keith will confirm this as, when staying with us one weekend, he looked at my copy of The Maybrick Case. A Treatise by Alexander William MacDougall, London, Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, 1891, the year before the controversial 'diary' was made public knowledge, and certainly before I knew about it. I had at that time just about every book available on the case, confirming my interest.
It would appear that there is little doubt that MacDougall did use the 'verbatim' reports as provided by the press, with italicised exceptions of notes in the book. A 'notice to the reader' appears at the front of his book -
MacDougall's source for the will was the press, because of the erroneous form (one error) in which it appeared in the papers. Other errors of transcription were MacDougall's own. An examination of the original documentation clearly shows there was no question of a forgery.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 09:09 am | | Hi Stewart,
Thanks for that. But I'm even more confused now. According to Keith, MacDougall did go to look at the original. Is Melvin still arguing that he didn't?
Any ideas why MacDougall would have gone to such trouble, only to work instead with an erroneous version in the papers? And didn't Ryan mention a will written on blue paper in a shaky hand? What was all that about?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 12:44 pm | | Caz,
I do not intend to get into a debate based on anything about the 'dodgy diary', and you will not draw me into one. I do not know what Melvin is arguing, I am merely commenting on what I know of Maybrick's will in view of your comment that you could not believe that MacDougall would rely on a newspaper transcript.
However, to address the point you are making, it has nothing to do with MacDougall actually going to see the will. He copied it from the press transcript of it as shown by the variant format and wrong word. The press transcript was accurate except for this one word. Somehow, MacDougall made further errors that do not appear in the press version. All this has been adequately covered in full, in the past, more than once. The validity of the holograph will is not in question and it entirely agrees with the certified copy.
The fact that MacDougall went to inspect the original will was provided by me, which is where Keith obtained his information. It appears on page 211 of the exceedingly rare book, that I own, The Maybrick Case A Statement of the Case as a Whole by Alexander William MacDougall, London, Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, 1896 (I don't think that even the British Library has a copy). It states: -
"The fact that the will was thus kept back, and not even referred to at the trial, set me upon inquiry, and I went down to Liverpool to inspect the original of it at the Registry Office there. I found that it was written in a sprawling hand on two sheets of paper with no margins..." MacDougall obviously had a 'bee in his bonnet' about the will.
I have supplied copies of relevant pages from this rare book, years ago, to, amongst others, Keith, Paul Feldman, and Colin Wilson.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 01:41 pm | | Thanks again Stewart.
I understand that you don't want to be drawn into the diary debate. I hope you can see why I find all the twists and turns quite fascinating and at times utterly unfathomable. 
Thanks too, for confirming that MacDougall did inspect the original will. I had certainly always assumed, until recently, that the whole argument hinged on the fact that MacDougall had relied on a faulty transcript instead of going back to the primary source. For a man who 'obviously had a 'bee in his bonnet' about the will', it makes absolute sense that he would inspect the original with a fine-toothed comb, and absolutely no sense at all that he would then have chosen to work from a transcript in a newspaper.
But then, since when did anything, or anyone, touched by the damned diary ever begin to make perfect sense?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 10 December 2002 - 04:08 pm | | OBLIGATIONS IDENTIFIED
Robert Smith misrepresents, once again! My message did not involve PUBLISHERS as he wrongly claims. It involved one ex-publisher only - himself. His obligations began when he wrote his REBUTTAL for the US edition of Mrs Harrison's hardback. He then became an advocate; a debater of the issues; a presenter of alleged evidence; thus part of the action and part of the problem. This stance brought with it a number of responsibilities. These included the responsibility for making an honest and complete disclosure of the contents of reports and tests which had bearing on the authenticity of the Diary and the watch. This was not done. It was only through my efforts that we eventually learned of the defects in the Leeds tests and the faulty date used in the Wild test. How many more defects lie hidden from sight? Publication of all the test documents is the only way to provide an overdue answer.
I can understand Smith's need to ignore his writings on the Maybrick Will because the claims he made were so preposterous. Yet they remain on record as prime examples of the lengths to which he was prepared to go in order to dismiss this telling evidence which proved the Diary to be a fake. The lawyers of the Legal Department of the 'Sunday Times' recognised the fakery the moment they examined a copy of the Will; they then took the step of contacting the police. The rest is history.
As for the tiresome fuss over the Sphere binding, if Smith bothered to read before he wrote he would find that long ago I stated that the adhesive defects in the volume were multiple and did not apply to the Crashaw page alone. And the implied sneer over Alan Gray's 'sudden and precise recall' of a September 94 date is pretty low and does Smith no credit. Alan has FOR YEARS given the first naming of the Sphere book as happening in the first week of September 1994. It was only recently that he obliged Keith Skinner's co-author Seth Linder by going back to his records of that period. He was then able to confirm that his first engagement by Mike was on Sunday evening August 14th 94, and his re-engagement was on the morning of Saturday September 3rd 94. The Sphere book and other alleged evidence was named to him at that briefing. Prior to September 3rd this book had been mentioned as evidence but was not specified since Alan had no real interest in following up matters that were outside his original commission. But the second commission made it relevant and this was reported to me when I first rang on behalf of 'The Sunday Times'.
Now Smith is aware of the Skinner/Linder collaboration so he must know that Gray went out of his way to oblige. So why the sneer? He must certainly be in touch with all the developments in that field, especially since he tells us of a letter that Mike is said to have sent me. Well I have not yet seen such a letter, but it is a waste of time to send it to me since I have lived up to my moral obligations and given the book back to Alan Gray. This was the fair thing to do, since it is clear that Mike is now intent on making more money out of the hoax, which means that Alan will be delighted to hear from him and consider any requests. Alan also expects that any letter to him will include a cheque for £1,500, which is the amount owed him by Mike Barrett. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 - 04:35 am | | Hi Melvin,
The rest is indeed history - I'm surprised people weren't charged with wasting police time.
I agree it is all a very tiresome fuss you are making over the Sphere binding. If these multiple adhesive defects in Mike's copy are so significant in helping to prove his involvement in a modern hoax, why on earth didn't Alan Gray do something as soon as 'the second commission' on 3rd September (at long last we've got this date out of you, when many moons ago you could only tell us it was 'LONG BEFORE' the Barretts split up and Mike's confession) 'made it relevant'? If Alan didn't realise just how relevant it was until much later, why not? Why didn't Mike tell him on 3rd September? Why did it take until nearly Christmas to get hold of this vital piece of evidence?
And how much time elapsed between Alan Gray telling you about this 'relevant' evidence of forgery and the day in December 1994 when it was finally collected from Mike's solicitor's office?
When exactly did you return Mike's book to Alan Gray? It must now be obvious to everyone that you never had any intention of allowing an independent book-binding expert near the thing.
So after ten years, all you have to show for your continuing efforts to bind Mike and the Johnsons to the two artefacts is - what? A book first mentioned by Mike two months after he was desperate to prove he faked the diary himself, but which no one is allowed to inspect; and scratches in a watch that, by your own admission, 'cannot be dated and could well be modern fakes'.
But I forgot - you never intended or wanted to expose the forgers themselves, only the shortcomings of everyone else involved.
Will you still be doing it in ten years from now? I'm looking forward to it already.
Love,
Caz |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Caz,
I certainly agree with your message to Melvin re
the diary. But one comment I must make, is if
indeed Mike Barrett forged the diary he must be
damm good. Personally I don't think he did but I
do certainly feel that someone did. Mike doesn't
seem smart enough to pull it off. But I am leaning
towards accepting that it was a forgery.
best regards julie |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Christopher George,
I know I am in the wrong category, message wise
but I ran into problems trying to send a response
to your post. Thank you for pointing out to me the
size of the aprons. This gives me a whole new
prospective on things. I thought we were talking
about a small corner piece of an apron. I know my
mom wore an apron, but not down to her feet. Under
those circumstances I would say that Jack did
indeed cut this piece for his purpose, whatever it
was at the time, and took it away. Carrying body
parts sure sounds like a good reason right now.
But it also makes me think that Jack either did
not intend to take out parts else he would have
come prepared with his own bag or piece of cloth,
whatever. As much as I have studied Jack I still
have a lot to learn. Thank you for helping me
again.
Yours julie |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 12 December 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Julie:
I've kinda suspected that maybe he did take a piece of cloth, but it got dropped or mislaid somewhere in the vicinity of Dutfield's Yard. That might help explain why cloth was removed from Eddowes' body but not from the other victims.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:21 am | | Timsta,
I got 10 Rillgton Place the other day and it was very, very interesting. Richard Attenborough is one of my favorites anyway and to see John Hurt not looking like Montrose (from Rob Roy) was nice. He didn't yell it in the dock; it was right before they hanged him. He got nervy and said "but it was him, it was Christie". Anyway, thanks again for the tip on the movie.
Paula from up I35 |
Author: Robert Smith
Friday, 13 December 2002 - 12:10 pm | | MELVIN IN WONDERLAND
The time has come to bring the curtain down on my exchanges with the King of Cant and Rant, the Cherie Blair of ripperology.
I did wonder, whether Melvin Harris had anything more to offer over and above his contribution in 1993/4, but he does seem firmly stuck in a nine-year old time-warp. He also is intent on laying false trails. I have shown his claim, that Mike Barrett’s copy of the Sphere book could be identified by its “defective binding” and by being from “a faulty batch” to be pure fantasy. The hearsay of what Alan Gray and Melvin may have discussed in September 1994 about a book, which was not identified, even in Melvin’s own account as the Sphere History of Literature, is another totally unsubstantiated and undocumented scenario. Anyway, by the end of that month, Mike had spoken specifically about his discovery of the Crashaw quote to Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison. Melvin’s version of the events and timings around the Sphere book has shifted so many times, we are never likely to get a straight story from him.
But why should he bother to establish facts conscientiously, when innuendo and obfuscation can fill the void and disguise the self-styled hoax-buster’s abject failure to prove the diary a forgery? Instead he plugs away at trying to undermine the evidence and opinions of experts likes Voller, Turgoose, Wild, Rubinstein and Canter. He doesn’t interview witnesses, but prefers to slur the likes of the Barretts, Kane and Devereux from the safety of his desk, supported by no evidence whatsoever. He arranged a maverick test of the diary ink for the presence of Chloroacetamide, which he knew would produce no measurable amount of the ingredient, instead of commissioning a conclusive test to settle whether or not the diary was actually written with Diamine ink, as he contended (but presumably was too afraid to establish). He has continually hinted at having secret information about the diary’s origins, but then put up another smoke screen by saying he had to protect a journalist’s information (at the Daily Express). What a laugh! If that information had strongly supported the forgery theory, the newspaper would have published it years ago. The truth is, that Melvin has nothing new to say, and hopes no-one will notice.
I have spent far too much time trying to take Melvin seriously, and I must now leave him to talk to himself. I am sure he will find the conversation fascinating.
I hope I have contributed a few stimulating ideas, since I first posted on these boards. Thanks for reading them (if you have) and a Happy Christmas to you all.
Robert Smith |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 12:36 pm | | SMITH MUDDLES ON
In his immature post of 13 Dec 2002-09:21 Smith shies away from confronting his past absurdities and resorts to jibes unworthy of anyone who wishes to be considered fair and seriously concerned with the truth. He should be offering apologies for his past record but he tries to deflect attention away by inventing even more absurdities.
Of me, he says: "He doesn't interview witnesses, but prefers to slur the likes of the Barretts, Kane and Devereux from the safety of his desk, supported by no evidence whatsoever." Really? As a professional interviewer with over thirty years experience in that field I find that view risible. As a field-investigator I have never ducked the chance of an interview. But out of the four people listed by Smith TWO COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED BY ME. In Devereux's case, because HE DIED before the Diary was known to anyone in London! In Kane's case, because his heart is so weak that he could not stand up to questions from me without suffering dangerous stress. I was not prepared to put him through such an ordeal. But in the Barretts case Smith sneers without without knowing any of the facts. Fact 1:- I OFFERED to meet Anne Barrett. My standard, professional terms were sent by letter to Martin Howells, who was then in charge of setting up a meeting, but she refused to meet these basic, pre-interview requirements. She was the only person EVER to refuse! Fact 2:- In Mike's case I DID interview him. I questioned him on the phone at length. On the last call he dropped all his early claims to having written the Diary and said "I had sod all to do with it. It was Devereux and his pals. I just gave him that quote and he liked it. That's all." In addition, I met and talked with Robbie Johnson, the mouthpiece for the hoax watch. I summed him up as a very dubious character and a con-man. I later established that he was a drug addict with a criminal record and was out of prison in time to have faked the scratches. None of those important details had ever been made public by the Diary clique. Apart from that, I spent a whole day at Paul Feldman's house, listening to a lengthy saga of alleged 'evidential statements' I even remember patiently trying to get him to understand quite simple propositions, like the insurance policy clause in the Will, and the clearly bogus nature of the text he was using. Alas, his clouded vision proved too hard to penetrate!
Sadly, Smith still prefers to make claims without evidence or due caution. Thus he writes of my "maverick test of the diary ink for the presence of chloroacetamide". But it was NOT MY TEST; at that time it was the one and only test advised by Voller. If he had bothered to read the testing history on these boards he would have known that. And he would also have learned that the test was simply to see if the suggested ink HAD been used. It was not meant to prove the Diary a fake, that had already been established.
But Smith is more intent on trying to score cheap points than reaching clarity. In doing so, he misrepresents me freely and diminishes himself. He claims that "Melvin's version of the events and timings around the Sphere book has shifted so many times, we are never likely to get a straight story from him." Now that is a rotten lie. If you look at my post for Friday, Nov 3, 2000-09:31pm, you will see that I took the trouble to re-check the book dates with Alan Gray, since my files were in store. He then confirmed that the first mention of this 'evidential book' was in August 1994 shortly after he was first engaged. The later naming of this book, as a Sphere book, took place in the first week of September. Those dates have never been deviated from, indeed as a result of the enquiries made by Seth Linder, Alan went through his records and gave the exact days and times as Sunday evening Aug 14th, and Saturday morning September 3rd. But I have already stated this, so is Smith really that dense?
Now, Alan's records are precisely logged and backed up by correspondence from Urquhart Knight Broughton, for Mike and Deacon Goldrein Green for Anne. A letter from solicitor Philip Porter, dated 14th September proves that Mike visited his solicitors on the 8th September after receiving letters from Deacon Goldrein Green in late August and Sept 2nd. Thus Mike's re-commissioning date confirms Alan's original statement that he spoke in the first week of September, BEFORE Mike's visit to his solicitors.
Smith is equally confused when he attempts to deal with the Sphere book. The other matching defects found in Mike's volume and the one owned by Peter Birchwood prove the existence of batch faults. But this is no longer of importance now that THREE copies fall open at the right place. The original escape excuse was that Mike had biased the book himself, by bending the pages back and forth. As an excuse this is now dead. But Smith's sudden fuss over this book has another side to it. To my mind this is probably involved with the marketing of the announced 'Diary History' by Skinner and Linder. What is certain is that Mike has asked for the Sphere book to be sent not to him, but to Smith's office in London. So Smith is still in cahoots with this self-confessed liar and con-man! This is the man who on 19th Dec 1994, retracted a 'confession' he had made earlier, then issued two new and contradictory admissions. This led Smith to write (13th Jan 1995) "You told me before Christmas that it was genuine and given to you by Tony Devereux, as the book describes. Yet you tell others, including the Liverpool Post, Shirley Harrison and Jenny, that you wrote it." Yet they are still in cahoots. A clear case of profits before principles.
Finally Smith lists the 'experts' I am supposed to have tried to undermine. Among these he names Rubinstein, which is an unkind joke, since that man is way out of his depth. As for the others, this is further proof that Smith has never read the relevant evidence placed on screen, or found in the technical reports. Let him now read them or stay mute. But if he has trouble in understanding them let him come back for advice.
As for the other non-readers or muddled thinkers who elbow in with pet fallacies, I advise a change in attitudes. Why should we have to put up with their nonsense? For example, it is dire nonsense to assume that MacDougall used anything but the transcript of a newspaper report to write up the Will. The evidence is beyond challenge and anyone using logic can see that, when they examine the FOUR documents involved. Try it. You will need the complete holograph Will; the Certified Copy; the newspaper verbatim transcript and MacDougall's faulty transcript of the Press text. And if anyone who believes in Graphology thinks that this practice supports the Diary let them now take on board the fact that the report by a leading Spanish Graphologist, R. Torrents Botey, concluded that the Diary was a modern fake written by a woman! As for visual testing using pre- 1992 Diamine ink, this was in fact undertaken by Nick Warren (who owns the ink) and this information has been recorded MORE THAN ONCE on this board. And if anyone wishes to claim that the then-expensive chloroacetamide was used in iron-gall ink manufacture in 1888, let them now NAME the manufacturer and produce the evidence; or back down. Fair enough? |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 03:54 pm | | Melvin Harris
You have certainly brought forth information that
indeed has not been pointed out with respect to
the diary. I am inclined to also think that it is
fake, especially since Mike Barrett confessed that
it was a fake, and then withdrew this confession.
If it were indeed genuine, he and several others
stood to lose a great deal, by his supposed false
confession, this just doesn't make sense.
I am curious whether or not the person or persons
who wrote this diary, other than James Maybrick of
course, could be charged with fraud. After all the
book or books were supposed to be true crime not
fiction. If it were able to be proven that persons
knowingly and willingly wrote these books with
the express intention for financial gain for
themselves then they defrauded the population by
claiming the facts written are true and the story
on how the diary came to be was true and so on.
I would never have bought the book/books pertaining to the Diary, James Maybrick or for that matter Florence Maybrick, had there been any
indication that the book was in fact fiction and
neither would any other true crime follower and
certainly not a Jack the Ripper enthusiest.
Hope to hear back from you
julie |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 09:43 am | | Hi Julie,
No one knows who wrote the diary, so that person cannot be charged with fraud unless he/she is identified and it can be proved that they were happy for their work to be published and to make money from it.
Does anyone seriously buy a JtR book these days expecting to get a definitive solution to the case for their money? I'd be truly amazed to find any ripper enthusiasts doing so.
Hi Melvin,
So Nick Warren undertook visual testing of pre-1992 Diamine, compared it with the diary ink, and didn't show anyone, not even you, the results.
It would have been shouted from the rooftops had the two inks looked identical, so the only possible conclusion must be that they ended up looking quite different, and that Nick wanted to spare your feelings by not showing you.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 10:22 am | | While Mr. Kane's health is in no way comical, I did get a chuckle out of this line in The Big M's note:
"In Kane's case, because his heart is so weak that he could not stand up to questions from me without suffering dangerous stress."
Answering Melvin's questions -- often, more than twice -- is not recommended for those with even a stout heart. Or who'd a thunk that the words Melvin and stress could be uttered in the same sentence?
Hey Julie (nonperson? really now!):
Don't hold your breath waiting for M to reply to you, though he should spend much more of his valuable online time doing so instead of rehashing old grudges.
Hey Caz:
How's tricks? So: Nick Warren owns the ONLY pre-1992 Diamide ink? And ain't he a medical doctor, not an inkologist (or whatever)? Should we trust the results of ANY purely visual test -- since so many things are as they seem purely in the eye of the beholder? And can the eye actually detect "then-expensive chloroacetamide?"
(All this in re: "As for visual testing using pre- 1992 Diamine ink, this was in fact undertaken by Nick Warren (who owns the ink) and this information has been recorded MORE THAN ONCE on this board. And if anyone wishes to claim that the then-expensive chloroacetamide was used in iron-gall ink manufacture in 1888, let them now NAME the manufacturer and produce the evidence; or back down. Fair enough?")
Like Beauty (and pre-1992 Diamide ink and then-expensive chloroacetamide), what is "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder, especially when the beholder is the Big Kahuna.
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 11:53 am | | | Caz--But for her money, Julie wasn't asking for a 'definite solution to the case'; she was only asking not to be defrauded. Not an unreasonable expectation, I think. |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 11:54 am | | What a damned hellish discussion this is. What a piece of work is man!
Go Giants!
David |
Author: julienonperson
Saturday, 28 December 2002 - 04:57 pm | | Hi Caz
With all due respect, I feel that you misread my
message. I would not buy a book on JtR or any other true crime if it were indicated at all that the facts indicated are not facts at all. I do not read non fiction. If there was any indication that the diary was MADE UP I would not have wasted my money. If there were any proof that the authors or those imputting information were doing so,knowing that they were not telling the truth
then it is fraud. Especially if it was for their
own gain, which would make sense, why do it otherwise. I do think the diary is a fake due to
Michael Barrett. He blew it, whatever way we look at it. But my point was that if indeed it was a fake from the start and those involved with the book knew this, their a**es should be kicked all the way to kingdome come.
best regards
julie |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:40 am | | Hi Yaz,
Good to see you. I know what you mean about trusting the results of visual tests. But presumably Nick Warren did his test with pre-1992 Diamine for a reason. My question is what happened? When did Nick compare his sample written in Diamine with the diary itself? Did he get together with Robert and an expert 'inkologist', like Alec Voller, Diamine's former chief chemist, in order to establish whether further forensic testing would be worthwhile or not, depending on the similarity or dissimilarity between his sample and the diary?
If so, what happened? If not, why not?
I'd be surprised if Melvin never asked these questions. But the silence on such crucial issues is always deafening, only exceeded by the roar of old scores being settled that don't clear anything up at all.
Hi Julie,
I apologise if I misread your message.
Trouble is, there is no proof that anyone connected with the diary or the diary books committed fraud.
If you, or anyone else, can find something in the way of evidence to the contrary, and can identify the guilty person or persons, you will have done better than the combined might of Melvin Harris and Scotland Yard. The latter was sent on a fool's errand some nine years ago and their investigation went nowhere.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 07:35 am | | Hey Caz:
Point taken. And I do wish that others would take the point that, until there is indisputable evidence against someone in this Diary story, to either argue that a case is not yet proven or that the accused are innocent until shown otherwise is NOT a defense of the Diary as a genuine JtR artifact.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
