|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 26 July 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Ronnie Biggs - to release him or not?:
Archive through 26 July 2002
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 08:43 am |        | All those of you in Britain will be familiar with Ronnie Biggs and the Great Train Robbery.
But Ronnie Biggs is in his seventies now, shouldn't he be released? Or should he be made to die in jail?
Technically he still has 28 years of his sentence left to serve, but in a day and age where terrorists, paedophiles and murderers are routinely let out in a matter of months rather than years, is Ronnie Biggs nothing more than a political prisoner?
And aren't we being a little petty in refusing his son the small matter of British Citizenship, so he can visit with his father?
Ronnie Biggs was never the nicest of men, his crime and it's consequences should not be glorified, but the Ronnie Biggs of 2002 is a decrepit old man, who is not a danger to anyone.
Why waste our money locking him up any longer?
Peter. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 10:41 am | | Peter,
Some in the USA are familiar with Ronnie Biggs. As a matter of fact, I have 45 rpm record of him singing "No One is Innocent" with the guitarist and drummer of The Sex Pistols. The record jacket has a picture of Biggs walking on some South American beach, with cutouts of escaped Nazi's sunbathing in the background.
I believe that Biggs was a minor player in The Great Train Robbery. He was supposedly responsible for finding a crooked train engineer willing to participate in the robbery. When it came time for the crooked engineer to take over (the real was one knocked out), Biggs' engineer either did not have the necessary skills or was too nervous. Biggs had to revive the real engineer to move the train to a bridge, where the money was offloaded. His only real contribution was carrying the money bags. Let the old guy out.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 11:25 am | | Ronnie Biggs should walk today.
Peter is right, we have much more dangerous people strolling around in our community right now mostly due to some clever or bent brief getting them off on a technicality of law.
Why only today a madman who ran amok stark naked with a razor sharp Japanese samuria sword and attacked 12 people coming out of church 2 years ago has been freed, after the judge at the trial said he should remain inside at her Majesties pleasure without date.
I only hope the do-gooders who pleaded his case have a conscience if he does it again. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 01:49 pm | | Andy - that was exactly the case I had in mind! I read the articles on him too, it seems such a short space of time for him to serve. Apparently he was found not guilty "by reason of insanity". That is a verdict I have never understood, do sane people commit murders? Hindley and Brady, sane or mad?
As for old Ronnie, well he was a bit of a rogue but I don't see why he should be punished any longer.
I can almost imagine him drinking a pint outside a village pub ...
It's a shame he's not a Northern Ireland terrorist, he'd be out sooner than you could say "Why has Peter Mandelson's boyfriend got a British passport?", and having high tea with Blair and the wicked witch at No. 10.
Ronnie should be freed now and his son should be allowed to stay in this country indefinitely.
(Quick hint to Ronnie's son: Creep in through the channel tunnel, then not only will you be allowed to stay - but you'll get a house and some money too).
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: stephen miller
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 04:04 am | | Peter I agree he should be set free
The sentence handed out was harsh and happens all too often in UK tougher sentences for material crimes as compared to ones against the person
from steve
 |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 08:09 am | | Agreed, Stephen.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 10:47 am | | Not agreed.
Old saying,
'If you cant do the time...dont do the crime.'
He bolted rather than serve his sentence.
Lived a life that some who do not turn to crime and live homeless would swap if it wasnt for their high moral standards.
A life that some would describe as comfortable.
A harsh sentence ?? He knew the score at the start. He wasnt the bloke that was twatted.
Ronnie has lived such a hard life, aint he ?
No sympathy for such a man. Shame on you.
Monty
 |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 02:08 pm | | OK Monty, this is where it gets interesting - you whipping boy.
I agree that, at the time, Ronnie should have been made to serve the sentence that the court handed down. But, hand on heart, in his position I would have done the same thing - i.e. fled prison when the opportunity presented itself.
And he led a gainful life whilst in Rio, profiting from his notoriety.
But the sad fact of it is Monty, that Ronnie Biggs is now an old gentleman who presents no danger to anyone. He has a son who is being punished for actions his father did before the son was born.
We couldn't keep Ronnie in prison when it counted, so why should we now?
I'm not advocating making him into a martyr, or inviting him for high tea at No. 10, just letting him out to have a couple of pints in the East End, then go and settle in a bungalow near the beach at Brighton.
What's wrong with that?
Cheers ye wee haggis
Peter. |
Author: Garry Ross
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 09:31 pm | | Perhaps they remember that song he did with the Sex Pistols ? 
I agree that far too many sentences handed out are just plain dumb - if you consider the evil men who prey on children/women etc and ruin their lives only to get a few years and then someone runs off with some huge companies cash and gets life for it you start to wonder don't you ?
and I won't bring it up about that fella who was spotted with a goat and was found to have goat hairs in his underpants even though he denied it,
although I did nearly wet myself when I read about it
take care and be kind to the animals...in a normal fashion,
Garry |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 04:53 am | | Monty - Nobody knew the score at the start. They all assumed that by keeping violence to a minimum they would ensure relatively short sentences if caught. The length of the sentences shocked everyone at the time. (I'm not, by the way, suggesting that even the extremely likeable Bruce Reynolds was a non-violent character. Apart from the quite evil men on the footplate, the Reynolds circle had previously carried out the Airport robbery with grave and premeditated violence).
Peter - I heartily endorse all your comments on Biggs today, and wonder why you can't run your mind along parallel lines in re Chistopher Craig?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Monty
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 08:06 am | | Peter and Martin,
So you are condoning Biggs escape and life on the run because he received such a hard sentence ?
I can believe you would have gone over Peter but this is where we differ.
Me ? I would have took the legal route no matter if it took a lifetime. I would have come out of this with dignity rather than advertise underwear on the Copa beach (hold on, that appeals...nah, Im too good for that).
My Girlfriend works in a bank. She has to look a CCTV footage daily of robberies in other branches. She runs the high risk of facing an armed robbery more than most people. I live in fear of such risk. This is why I make sure she calls me 5 times a day.
Robberies can go wrong and whilst I except that these villains do not want to harm anyone such situations can lead to someone somewhere getting hurt.
So please forgive me if I have no sympathy for Mr Ronald Biggs but it is because of people like him that I fear for someone I love so dear.
And that is the last line I shall waste on him.
Monty
|
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 08:39 am | | Okay Monty. No need to respond. But as I expected to go to prison as a conscientious objector fairly soon after I reached the age of 18, "Prison Etiquette, by The Inmates", ed.
Holley Cantine and Dachine Rainer, Bearsville NY: Retort Press, 1950, (a publication by a group of pacifist anarchists who had been in prison with Dave Dellinger during WWII) was one of the formative books of my adolescence. And the editors say in their introduction, "We realize that a book of this sort should be primarily concerned with techniques for escaping, but unfortunately such techniques are not easy to come by, for obvious reasons." (p.vi). So instead they give techniques for organizing resistance, giving the screws a hard time, and maintaining as much individuality and freedom as possible.
So provided they are non-violent, my automatic sympathies usually with the cons and not the screws. And I take escaping if he can possibly do it to be the first duty of anyone who feels himself to have been wrongfully imprisoned, unless he feels there is hope of serving both himself and his cause (if he has one) better by going through the hoops of confinement and appeal. In Biggs's case the appeal, "But your honours, these sentences were RIDICULOUS" would obviously go nowhere. He and Charlie Wilson and Bruce made their case far better by their daring and dramatic escapes. Alfie Hinds even made his extremely bad and phoney case by escaping and thereby getting public sympathy which extended to a quite misplaced sympathy from the libel court. (Typical of that disgraceful branch of the "justice".)
(And why didn't I go to prison? Because, to my great good fortune, National Service was abolished at exactly the time I should have been required to register).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 01 July 2002 - 07:49 pm | | Hi Martin
Re: Christopher Craig. Yes, I can see where you are coming from, but Craig got a perversely light sentence compared to Ronnie Biggs, didn't he?
Now the funny thing is that I run the risk of contradicting myself here, but I am quite happy to see ridiculously heavy sentences handed out for offences against property, if ridiculously heavy sentences are also handed out for offences against the person.
Personally I think a lot of people had a grudging respect for ALL the train robbers, and perhaps Ronnie in particular as he stuck two fingers up at the authorities from a beach in Rio.
My entire argument on this point rests on the fact that it was all so long ago and Ronnie is so unlikely to offend again that - what is the point?
Fine, give him a two year sentence, make him serve six months - then let him out for all his ops on the NHS. Ok, strictly speaking we wouldn't be sending out much of a message, deterrent wise.
I wouldn't even object if I thought the powers that be were keeping Ronnie behind bars for the right reasons, but they are not - they are using him as an example.
So a terminally ill pensioner is being excessively punished for a crime against property that occurred so long ago it has no relevance on modern life.
How can that be right?
The old chap doesn't even have the benefits of staying in an open prison with regular visits from his son.
And still the millions pour into the terrorist coffers. The CIA back one side against the other. Blair talks tough on terrorism abroad and releases IRA terrorists onto our street.
Question: An old guy of 72 years, who stole some money over thirty years ago, OR a twenty five year old terrorist who blew up a barrack room full of soldiers who were there to protect you and me. Which one should be back on the street now? Which one served two years of a thirty year sentence and was then invited for tea at No.10?
If they can do this to Ronnie Biggs, then they can do a damn sight better in investigating allegations that Peter Mandelson perpetrated a fraud on his mortgage application.
Christopher Craig? If I'd had my way, he would have been strung up alongside Bentley, but now I'd be tempted to have a cup of tea with him and try to get inside his head.
No Monty, not that way.
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 07:02 am | | Yeah, I guess we entirely agree that the disparity of sentences is a bad thing, though your inclination (except in the case of a geriatric escapee finally caught nearly 40 years after the dust has settled over his crime) is to up the lower penalties, where mine is to consider the validity of the upper. In Craig's case, "her Maj's consent" could have kept him in gaol until he reached senile and geriatric harmlessness, or died inside. I think that 'the sovereign's pleasure' is an entirely fair sentence. Everyone knows from the outset that the law has decided that physical or biological causes make this offender less than a responsible adult, and he will be released should the appropriate experts feel that he has now reached or returned to mental responsibility, and understands what he has done wrong, and is unlikely to repeat it. This is quite different from saying you will use a life sentence instead of capital punishment and then - a fraud on the bloodthirsty public - releasing the criminal after a decade or so. In any case, I think it is extraordinarily useful having Craig alive and sane and able to tell us (for example) that a man in his 50s or 60s may be completely unable to recapture in his mind what it even felt like to be the wildly disturbed adolescent screaming, "Come on all you brave coppers! Think of your wives!" The more we can know about minds like that, and what can be done environmentally and educationally to limit their recurrence, the better, I feel.
You'll probably disagree, feeling that nothing can be done - and I certainly agree that it's easy to sound ridiculously utopian. They say conservatives are natural pessimists and socialists are incurable optimists. Still, prior to the football hooligan period (whether or not it was being aggravated by Maggie's hyper-patriotism and Sun-struck Churchillian posturing) Britain was becoming a far gentler society than it had been before 1940. Anyone who said, "Take off you coat and come outside and say that again!" would have been taken for a fool with an Edwardian cast of mind. The man who hit Bernard Levin in a television studio for critical things Levin had said about his wife's work looked a complete stuffed-shirt toffee-nosed twit. I had to write character references for an ex-military friend who beat the sh*t out of a stranger who groped his wife outside a pub lavatory, and he and I were thankful that he got off with a suspended sentence. And it certainly has to be environment and cultural change, not genetics, that brought about this useful consignment of Bulldog Drummondism to the dustbin.
(Now where did all that uncalled for lecture come from?)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 06:36 pm | | Hi Martin
I'm not sure that I would agree that socialists are incurable optimists - I always thought socialists practised the politics of envy.
I don't even think there are any true socialists any more - one of my best friends at sixth form college (over sixteen years ago) was the biggest Labour party supporter EVER, whilst I, of course, wore the colours of Maggie.
But even he was realistic enough to concede that, for some people at least, voting Conservative is the best way to go.
What we have with the present incumbent is a very much watered down version of what we had with Maggie, except it's dressed up in the flag of the Labour party.
What absolute nonsense. The economy was in such good shape when they took power that a classroom of nursery children could have ran it.
I'm far more radical than Tony Blair would ever be, but that doesn't make me a socialist.
I share some socialist principles - i.e. I am firmly against private medicine - but will always vote Conservative.
Should government bear a responsibility for rehabilitating the likes of Christopher Craig?
Do you imagine that when Christopher Craig looks back upon his childhood he finds it hard to believe he was like that?
So much going round in my head - only a limited vocabulary to articulate it.
See you next time, Martin.
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 05:29 am | | Hi Peter,
Entirely agree with your characterization of Blair. Agree in general that Gordon Brown's success so far has rested largely on a continuation of Ken Clarke's sensible policies - except for the radical decision to pull the Chancellor and Treasury out of having any say over interest rates. Entirely agree that a Conservatism following Peel's dictum: "Inclined to continuity; disinclined to change" represents the sensible innate felings of contented people (for which reason Labour governments like Attlee's should have recognized that they had done their work well when their voters stopped turning out for them). Entirely agree that there is a form of socialism which is the politics of envy, and note that it usually translates fairly swiftly into National Socialism (cf Mussolini's socialist colleague who remarked to him while he was still a socialist, "But Benito, you don't love the poor. You just hate the rich"). Offer the suggestion that there are a few of us unreconstructed socialists still around, believing that we are our brothers' keepers, and asking from each according to his means to be distributed to each according to his needs.
How did we get into that?
I don't think Craig has ever said he finds it hard to believe he was like that. I think he has said he cannot recapture what it felt like to be like that - a different thing.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 07:05 pm | | Hello Martin
I came on here tonight and clicked on 'last day' as usual. No messages on the James Maybrick boards, nothing to rouse my interest elsewhere - but I knew you wouldn't let me down!
To add to the overall debate of socialism versus capitalism I would say that, in general terms the Labour party and the Conservative party want people to be at the same level, they just go about it in markedly different ways, let me explain that more clearly ...
One man earns £20 000 a year, another man earns eighty thousand pounds per year.
The Labour party's way of addressing that "problem" is by taxing the more successful man so heavily that, in time, his disposable income is little more than the first man.
However, the Conservative party would approach the situation by giving the man on £20 000 a year every chance to be as successful as his wealthier counterpart. They believe in investment, training - self help even.
The Conservative party fosters a healthy attitude of wanting to emulate the success of others - they want to pull us all up to the same level.
Whereas the labour party want to drag us all down to the same level.
So the end result isn't that different - both parties want us to be on the same level as each other, it's that one of those parties doesn't resent the success of others.
IDS appears to be doing quite alright, but if the opinion polls are anything to go by he really isn't making enough inroads into Labour's lead at a time when the government are vulnerable to attack.
Remember why the Conservatives were voted out? They called it "sleaze".
Every tabloid newspaper was full of stories of Conservative "sleaze".
But nothing any Conservative MP ever did, can compare to the hypocrisy of Blair in saying we can't send our children to grammar schools and then sending his children to ...err, a grammar school. By the way, the school his children go to is apparently the only one in the London area that does not have any asylum seekers on it's books.
And that's not elitist?
Mandelson's mortgage, Mandelson's boyfriend's passport, Two Jag's ridiculously double standards on using cars, Jack Straw's son caught peddling drugs (that's ok guys, we can deal with that one by decriminalising cannabis), The Prime Minister's son found in a drunken stupor in a London street after drinking himself senseless whilst underage (and where was the wicked witch? not at home looking after Damien, that's for sure), Jo Moore, Byers ... need I go on?
No government will ever be as corrupt as the one we have right now, but they get away with it because of their sheer arrogance.
Take the Euro for instance, deeply unpopular and nothing more than "art for art's sake", a way of gaining political integration through the back door.
It has been spectacularly unsuccessful since it's launch and yet Blair still sticks to his "We will hold a referendum when the 5 key conditions for entry can be met" line.
Why wait until then Tony? Why not have the referendum tomorrow, and then, if the answer comes back in your favour you can join up when your 5 key condtions are met.
No, Mr Blair is just using that as a smokescreen. The fact is that he knows that if a referendum were to be held tomorrow then his ambition of being president of Europe would be blown out of the water for all time.
Gordon Brown may be playing a very clever game, he could be setting Blair up for a fall over the Euro vote.
But please please please tell me - What does the labour party have to do to become unpopular with the voters?
Cheers Martin
Peter. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 05:26 am | | Hi Peter,
I guess the Labour party can probably do whatever it likes until the Conservative party becomes popular again with the voters.
I like the idea of giving people the chance, and encouraging them, to educate themselves out of poverty. But I'm not sure which party shares that idea and how best it can be achieved.
Love,
Caz
PS I saw G&S's Ruddigore at Tony's kids' school the other week. At least it's a great school for putting on a production about 'the greatest villain unhung'!
PPS Good luck today Tim! |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 04 July 2002 - 05:35 am | | Hi Peter!
We-e-ell... coud I start with generalizing that a present government with which we disagree is always likely to seem worse than its past predecessors. Thus Mr Bush's current pig-headed, stubborn stupidity in just about every single area of foreign policy one can imagine SEEMS much worse than Harding's, Coolidge's and Hoover's isolationism - (especially as Mr B has unbelievably thrown away with both hand the overwhelming international sympathy America won on September 11th) - yet it isn't, in the end, surely, any worse than that foreign policy that snoozed through the rise of the dictators and allowed Shinto to develop into an aggressive imperialist war-machine that ultimately gave the USA a nasy nip in the rear? In other words, without attempting to defend New Labour bosses from the charges you level at them, I don't honestly think they're worse than (say) Lloyd George and Rufus Isaacs contemplating Marconi. In fact, I think Lloyd George could have given any of our present mob quite a beating in the sleaze stakes. But he was still a great man; a great radical reformer when working with Churchill; a great war leader after he'd brought down Asquith with a sharper knife to the back than St Kenneth Livingstone used to wield when confronted with obstructing senior comrades in positions he coveted. Molto sleaze today? No change. No party has a monopoly or a clear victory, I think.
The levelling-down/levelling up argument is an old one, and surely completely disproven every time the "levellers-up" have been given their head? Maggie, I'm sure, genuinely believed in it, and thought that letting loose the "supply side" would increase everyone's prosperity. Did it? Hell, no! It not only widened the gap between rich and poor for the first time in over fifty years, it intensified the disparity to the point that we saw poverty on the streets the like of which had not been known since that Victorian morality which she held in such high esteem. Remember all those poor kids in sleeping bags along the Strand, desperately trying to keep presentable-looking in the hope of getting jobs, having followed imbecile Tebbitt's advice and got on their bikes to look for jobs in London? Did the suppliers plough back money into better production and more jobs? Hell, no! Fat cats who disgusted both Maggie and Major, the lot of them. And who are now disgusting the public so much by their continued self-awards of huge bonuses that (I read in The Week) would-be capitalist investors are giving up on the stock market and looking for land or some other similar place to put their money.
By contrast I think of the old lady I saw interviewed in the mid-1960s: a former mill-worker, never married, she now said that this was definitely the best time of her life. retirement with a reliable pension; National Health Service; social services present as a safety net. None of the uncertainty of employment ups and downs with booms and slumps; none of the unhappiness of trying to make ends meet on a wage that barely met subsistence; none of the fear that accident or misfortune might mean starving slowly in some cardboard city - (I know we never actually had Hoovervilles until Maggie, but you know what I mean). Since all men are NOT created equal in brains and beauty, and these things (at least) will give some men an advantage over others, and since that advantage can be turned to money which can then be used as a weapon to hold down others, and it usually is, it behoves the others to get together with men of good will to see that the equality of men sub specie eternitas is given some recognition in the body politic.
Enough of the diatribe! Any comment on Craig?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 02:10 pm | | MARTIN FIDO - COME BACK HERE!!!
I must admit to having no comment on Christopher Craig or his mate Bentley, but I do believe you have hit the proverbial nail on the head over George W. Bush.
How will history view Tony Blair? Will he be remembered any longer than Jade from the Big Brother house?
Now for something I have been itching to get off my chest ...
I work for a local authority and yesterday was a national strike for unions such as GMB, Unison etc.
Where I work there are usually hundreds of people in the building. Three turned up, and I was one of them.
You should know me well enough by now to know that, no matter what the cause, I don't believe the best way to achieve one's aims is to strike.
The pay offer is currently three percent, which is comfortably above inflation (thanks to the sensible economic policies that Gordon inherited from the Conservatives, but is currently in danger of throwing away. Another discussion, another time) and that is good enough for me.
I have been informed by a UNISON official that, although they are asking for 6% she would have accepted 3% and expects them to settle at around 3 1/2 percent.
That means all my colleagues lost a day's pay for the prospect of an extra half a percent in their pay rise.
Do the maths. It will take them the best part of a year to win back that lost day's pay.
Do you think they are all so stupid that they didn't get their calculators out and realise this? Well, believe it or not, some ARE that stupid - but, even worse than that, are the ones who "just wanted a day off work".
That's right. NO ONE told them that their was an alternative to striking, they were just told that a strike was on and they weren't to go into work. AND THEY AREN'T EVEN IN THE UNION.
I tried to whip up some support for crossing the picket line but was met with a chorus of "I want a day off" - incredibly NOT ONE person was taking the day off because of genuinely held beliefs.
And so when I turned up to work at ten minutes to seven in the morning I was met by a picket line of ...THREE PEOPLE!
Wow! How intimidating!
As I left to go to the gym at lunchtime (I have some timber I need to lose) I saw a crowd of over a hundred people enjoying a carnival atmosphere at the Town Hall, less than fifty yards from the building in which I work. The union loony lefties were there in their hordes giving out balloons to children and old people and generally attempting to create a party atmosphere.
As I came back after lunch they were still there, but my little picket line of three had dwindled to ... NONE. I got in to work unopposed.
And the banners they were holding aloft did NOT read "We want 6%", they read "We want £5 minimum wage".
So, in short, all my collegues who took the day off because "they wanted a day off" were inadvertently supporting a left wing vote for a £5 minimum wage.
£5? Seriously? And how do they intend to support the differentials?
The unions hoodwinked them, the Labour party take their donations and it will all probably be settled at three and a half percent.
No wonder I had a high temperature last week. My blood was boiling.
Off to calm down now.
Peter. |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 02:18 pm | | Peter,
Tony who ?
take care
Garry |
Author: Elizabeth P. Cochran
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 02:53 pm | | Anyone need more help, don't hesitate.
Betsy |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 11:22 pm | | Greetings all:
George who?
Luv,
Divia |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 19 July 2002 - 07:59 am | | Hi Peter!
I wondered where you'd got to.
Yup, my regular internet perusal of the Guardian Unlimited - (now the only one of the serious UK newspapers not charging for a free read, whence, rather than dedicated radicalism my current loyalty to it and abandonment of the Times and Telegraph for variety and a broad view) - left me unclear as to what the Unison strike was all about. I thought there was some women's issue - (glass ceiling? unequal pay or opportunities?) - involved somehow.
I agree that blind following executives calling strikes is a bad thing, and think that annual pointless strikes to put unnecessary muscle into pay bargaining were an absolutely dreadful habit, quelling which should be recognized as one of the rare (but very important and large-scale) good things Maggie did. With regard to the London Underground token strikes, on the other hand, I think that the Blairite pig-headed obstinacy in trying to let greedy and incompetent financiers muck up the tube as they have mucked up a once very useful overground railway network is such an affront to the people and their (our) wishes, that almost any effort is worthwhile to expose the hypocrisy of pretending that five minutes choice every five years means government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Ah! So you are a local government officer? Then you are aware, with all its faults, of the superior morality and often superior efficiency to be found in organizations dedicated to public service rather than the profit motive?
And, like you, I have crossed a picket line when I thought it was silly posturing (especially in view of the fact that university teachers who purported to be supporting student sit-ins in 1968 were withholding their services without sacrificing any pay whatsoever! An insult to people who really have had to choose hardship to try and save their jobs or their dignity)
What do I think Blair will be remembered for? If Brown's Clarke+ policies work, he'll be remembered as PM running a government which either proved or made a noble and definitive stab at working a cautious and prudent management of the economy with near-socialist expenditure of surpluses for the benefit of the disadvantaged (and, of course, the inevitable compromises and human failures that mean dedicated partisans of left and right will judge it an unprincipled failure). Also I think he may be remembered like Disraeli as a PM whose personal interest in and achievement of a foreign reputation rather eclipsed his domestic achievements. What that foreign policy amounts to has yet to be seen. Will he be the poodle of the imbecilic malapropist who imagines that threats and destabilization of unpopular regimes, unaccompanied by mobilization, willing sacrifice of life and immediate prosperity, or redirection of the national economy and effort, can be 'dignified' with the title of 'War'on terrorism? Or will Blair use his influence to try and put some realistic grasp of international affairs into the failed (if self-preserving) minor oil executive and modestly successful baseball club manager who now finds himself floundering about in command of more power than he knows what to do with?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 19 July 2002 - 07:05 pm | | Helloooooooo Martin
I simply can't believe that the Conservatives have failed to make capital out of the current disarray of the Labour party.
I genuinely fear that "New Labour" are looking at four consecutive terms in office, albeit that they are only currently in their second term.
I'm not so sure that Tony will man the helm for all that time though, and feel that it is only when he passes on the leadership to either Gordon or David Blunkett that the Conservatives will stand a genuine chance of being re elected.
However, there will be those who will vote for David Blunkett purely because he has got a guide dog. Then there will be those who will vote for Gordon Brown because his baby died.
I think Blair is in a "win win" situation. His only possible failure could be if he attempts a referendum on the single currency and is defeated.
If he manages to avoid that pitfall then he could well retire as a very rich man, still relatively young, with a career in Europe ahead of him.
The truth, of course, will be that he has drained the Conservative's economic policies to their limits and has allowed the unions to gain a foothold, if not a stranglehold, amongst the British workforce again.
I am utterly mystified by the animal that is the British electorate. Having given the reason for voting out the Conservatives as "sleaze" they now seem content to re elect a Labour Gvt that is more sleazy than a madame who lives on sleaze road, SleazeTown.
I am honestly perplexed.
William Hague was a likeable guy. They didn't elect him.
Portillo offered the advantage of being as good at spin as Blair is. He didn't even get elected by his own party.
IDS is a watered down version of Hague, but offers some of Paddy Ashdown's fighting credentials but none of John Major's working class background.
How will Blair be remembered? I wonder if he will have a statue of himself erected next to the one that is planned of Nelson Mandela in Trafalgar Square?
Am I the only person that remembers Mandela as a convicted terrorist in his own country?
How many years, then, until we erect statues of Martin McGuinness and his buddies over our fair country?
And all this time Ronnie Biggs is the only true political prisoner that there is.
Regards
Talk soon
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 19 July 2002 - 10:45 pm | | Oh-oh, Peter! Mandela a convicted terrorist? Steve Biko, perhaps, a stirrer up of unnecessary disaffection whose fortuitous premature death in custody was deeply regretted by the SA Police? Albert Luthuli's nomination a disgrace to the Nobel Prize Committee? Apartheid a noble experiment in the separation of races which was desired and welcomed by all sensible black South Africans? Mandela's conduct since his release from prison a brilliant piece of humbug which has deceived the world into thinking him one of the most generous-spirited and noble figures to appear in the leagues of world statesmen for the past fifty years?
Perhaps the only thing on which we might possibly agree is that PM Botha was very unfortunate to carry out his ameliorative reforms of apartheid (abolishing the morality and pass laws) so late in history that he got no credit, and was only accorded vilification for not having attempted a total and instant abolition of Malan and Verwoerd's evil construct.
(I must admit, you're very good fun to disagree with. To hold views so diametrically opposed to mine on subjects which are so touchy without ever losing your temper must argue some greatness of characer. But tell me, apropos a board where I very rarely venture, do you REALLY think there is anything in the Maybrick forgery?)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 07:03 am | | Dear Martin
The Maybrick forgery? Is that in anyway related to the diary that James Mabrick wrote in which he confessed his sins as Jack the Ripper?
I must admit that in the early days of contributing to the board I enjoyed the thrill of the debate more than I believed in any of my arguments. I even admitted as much to Chris George and John Omlor in private e mails.
I've been through all the ripper suspects at one time or another - my very first was Druitt, then I quickly moved on to Kosminski.
Stewart Evans even managed to convince me that Tumblety was a viable suspect, for a while at least. But I keep coming back to the fact that he was arrested just before the Kelly murder. Not that I have a problem with him having been given bail and the bail record not surviving. I just have a real problem with him having been given bail and sticking around to murder Kelly.
I've read all the main books on the subject, I was even swotting up on your David Cohen theory last night - your thinking is ingenious.
But when it comes to the diary I genuinely believe "there is something there".
I sincerely believe that if the diary was forged post 1989 then it would have been easy to prove, and yet Mike Barrett was demonstrably NOT the forger and even accused his wife, in private correspondence, of forging the thing.
Therefore, if we can take Mike out of the equation, the detractors lose the main plank of their argument - which has always been the Sphere guide and the Crashaw quote.
Mike didn't forge the diary. Anne says she saw it in 1969, her father over twenty years earlier.
Quite clearly, if Anne is telling the truth then the diary MUST be genuine, as Paul Begg has pointed out that the first time Bond's report was published was 1989 - and the diary reflects at least some knowledge of the location of MJK's breasts.
If Anne is not telling the truth then why hasn't someone broken her story by now? Polygraph machines, body language experts - they could all be used.
Imagine, if you will, a group of scousers forge a 'diary of Jack the Ripper', choose JM as their central character and decide to foist it, for some unknown reason, upon Mike Barrett.
They decide to have their central character call himself 'Sir Jim'. Imagine their joy when Paul Feldman's research uncovers the fact that JM was known as 'Sir James'!
They pop into a local art shop and buy a manuscript ink that manages to fool the experts, including the chief chemist of the company that manufactures the ink.
They fool Rod McNeill whose ion migration test dates the diary as being up to 80 years old which, whilst not directly placing the diary in 1888/89 MUST mean that the diary is genuine.
Why? Because if the diary was three years old the ions wouldn't have moved anywhere.
Then we have the watch. You know the one, where aged brass particles were found in the scratches, thus proving that they were at least 'decades' old.
This leaves us with the unlikely scenario that someone forged a 'ripper watch' some decades ago then, years later, someone else decides to forge a ripper diary.
There is more to this situation than being unable to accept that Jack the Ripper was a drug using, woman abusing, Victorian cotton merchant who kept a diary.
I mean, seriously! When I first heard that a diary had been discovered that purported to have been written by Jack the Ripper I thought "No Way!".
Now I don't think of it like that. I think of it as James Maybrick's diary, that's not such a big deal - after all plenty of victorians kept diaries. And James Maybrick just happened to be Jack the Ripper.
The detractors cannot prove the diary to be a fake/forgery, and why not?
Ahhh, but we digress! And you have got me onto my favourite subject again!
I think if we were ever to meet you would find me a very tolerant person who respects other's points of view - but really, a statue of Nelson Mandela in London? What chance they put up one of Margaret Thatcher in Johannesburg?
As for holding views which are diametrically opposed to your own, I find it more enjoyable to mix with people who hold views different to my own - it's the only way to learn. Otherwise I would be involved with a group of people whose only interest is self congratulation, habitually slapping each other on the back, just like used to happen on the diary boards around here.
I am a dyed in the wool Conservative, but some of my best friends are Socialists. I respect those people who went on strike on Wednesday because of strongly held beliefs more than those who just didn't have the courage to cross a picket line - even though I disagree with their opinions.
Anyway, now you know some of my reasons for believing in the diary. What are your reasons for opposing it and not visiting the diary boards?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 20 July 2002 - 11:41 pm | | Hello Peter!
No wonder we enjoy talking with each other, as I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist with a great respect for many Conservatives, and an expectation of learning more from them than from those who would merely confirm me in my own beliefs.
Okay, but setting aside our political discussion which probably ought not to take up possible time of serious Ripper researchers, not to mention Spryder's expense on waveband - on to the question of the Maybrick Diary. (Ronnie Biggs??)
Since Shirley Harrison is one of the most decent and honest people I know, I'm genuinely delighted to find somebody agreeing with her leanings as strongly as I disagree with them.
But...
Could you persuade Ann Grahame to take a polygraph test? I'm sure Shirley would be first in the queue cheering you on if you can.
Have you ever met Mike and Ann, or seen either of them arguing a case re the diary in front of an audience?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 21 July 2002 - 09:59 am | | Hi Martin
It's nice to think that we are two sides to the same coin.
Maybe our world leaders should just agree to disagree so amicably?
As for Mike and Anne arguing the diary ...
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting either of them, although I would dearly love to.
I believe though, that you have had the pleasure of meeting people who have met Anne and Mike - although I can't remember reading anywhere that you had met them in person. Please correct me if I am wrong on that point.
I believe people like Paul Begg and Keith Skinner, although not convinced that the diary is genuine (quite the opposite?) have been impressed by certain aspects of Mike, Anne, Caroline and Billy Graham's stories.
I don't know, I would have to go back to PHF and Shirley's books to bolster my arguments in that respect.
All I remember of Mike Barrett is the video that PHF produced - at which time Mike hadn't been "broken" on the diary. In the video he tells the story of being given the diary by Tony Devereux and he sticks to that story.
The only time I have "heard" Anne Graham speak was on the recent Discovery Channel (?) programme which also featured PB, Andy Parlour and Jeremy Beadle.
I remember seeing a glint in her eye when speaking and I also remember thinking (fleetingly) "If I was a doubter I would read something into that". It almost seemed to be saying "You can't prove that I am lying".
But Anne's story is one that has never changed, whilst Mike has tripped himself up several times and can't now be trusted.
I do believe that it has been proven beyond doubt that Mike could not have been the forger, his own daughter's evidence proved that beyond doubt. Wasn't it PB and KS who pummelled her with questions about the day Mike brought the diary home, when they were all on the way to the Post House with Anne, Mike and PHF?
I remember thinking that it would take a very bright 11 year old to have fooled Paul Begg and Keith Skinner - considering that her story too, has never changed.
Plus the fact that Mike has privately accused Anne of forging the diary.
And I also seem to remember reading that KS was impressed with Billy Graham's story of what he would have done with the diary if he had realised it was worth so much money.
In summary: I don't see what Anne Graham would have to lose by undertaking a polygraph test. Failing that maybe we could just get a body language expert to review her "performance" on the recent programme referred to above?
Ronnie Biggs? I'm sure that name means something to me ...
Take Care
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 12:17 am | | Hi Peter,
I've met both. Mike's total disregard for truth and probable ability to believe anything that suits him at any moment in time make him absolutely hopeless as a witness to anything at all.
Anne changed one small detail of her story after long and careful questioning by me, and, of course, never told the story at all until pushed into a corner by Paul Feldman. In fact, she told a completely different story originally, and, by implication at least, tried to persuade the police that she had nothing to do with the diary when they were investigating the possibility of fraud. I don't find either of her stories inherently plausible.
Caroline's apparent confirmation of Mike's receipt of the mysterious parcel is the strongest thing going for Anne's story. (In fact, in my opinion, the ONLY thing going for it). As I wasn't there when it was elicited - (and I don't believe Paul or Keith would ever have pummelled a child with questions) - and I have never met Caroline, I don't really know what it was worth. I have, on the other hand, read the transcript of Feldy's long cross-examination of Billy Graham, and a worse sequence of leading questions, grabbing at straws, and ultimate cross-purposes I have rarely seen.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 04:47 pm | | Hi Martin
What was the small detail of Anne's story that she changed after your questioning?
As Paul Feldman tells it, I understand that Anne Graham has never changed her story - simply added to it.
It seems quite logical to me, but then again I am biased aren't I?
I hope you didn't think I was being disrespectful to Paul B and Martin Howells when I mentioned them eliciting information from Caroline. I took my lead from Paul Feldman's book, p. 143 of the paperback:
"We had promised to take the Barretts to lunch. A cab was ordered for them as we could not all fit into my car. Caroline asked if she could travel with us, I said it was ok ... Paul Begg and Martin were relentless. The poor kid had barely sat down in the car when they started a cross examination. 'Do you remember when your dad came home with the diary? Do you remember whether your dad phoned Tony and asked him where he got the diary from? Do you remember the row when your dad told your mum he was going to get it published?'" (My emphasis).
I may have previously laboured under the delusion that it was Keith Skinner in the car with Paul Begg and PHF. Sorry about that.
I can understand you not wanting to trust a word that Mike Barrett says, I wish I could have had the opportunity to meet him - to judge him as a person for myself.
But, that aside, I genuinely believe that Mike has been taken out of the forgery equation - by reference to Caroline's evidence and Mike's complete inability to mention the Sphere guide at a meaningful time.
It is to be regretted that the diary has come to the public's attention via an unemployed scrap metal dealer from Liverpool who wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit him on the ankle.
Who knows? Maybe if the next Ripper conference is to be held in Liverpool, as I have been led to believe, then I may get the opportunity to meet either Mike or Anne and judge them for myself.
But Martin, I do agree with you over Paul Feldman's questioning of Billy Graham. Although I haven't had the pleasure of taking in the complete transcript I have read the little that is reproduced in PHF's book and it would be torn apart in a court of law.
That however does not alter the undeniable fact that Billy Graham gives the diary a provenance going back to the 1940's.
And if Billy was lying then Anne must have asked him to lie.
Do you think she did that?
One day, very soon, we will get back to discussing Ronnie Biggs, Chris Craig and Derek Bentley. One day.
Oh and whilst I think on the matter - ITV repeated an interview they did with Joanne Lees in March of this year.
What is your opinion of that case Martin?
I'd love to hear if you think she killed her boyfriend. Or do you believe her story?
What do you make of her as a witness? And her apparent disregard for the press?
I find the whole thing rather strange and my opinion on her wavers between the two extremes on a, virtually, daily basis.
Take care Martin
See you soon.
Peter.
P.S. Sorry to hear about your problem on the other board. I've suffered like that too, thankfully not to the extent that you seem to be.
It doesn't alter the fact though, that I think you had readers all over the world spluttering coffee all over their keyboards! |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:09 am | | Like an intrusive "Um" or "Er", Peter, this is not saying anythng: just putting in a benchmark to show I've read your post and am claiming a space to answer - only not immediately. (Am very busy with house guests and a lot of trips away from home).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 05:10 pm | | I appreciate that Martin. Speak to you again when you get the time, I'll just go and amuse myself by mentally tormenting anyone called John that I can find and also ribbing Monty about something, anything!
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:37 pm | | Hi Peter,
The small detail was the room in which Anne claims to have hidden the diary for a period of months or years during which Mike could not find it. When she spotted that her answers to my questions included this contradiction of her story, she produced a very elaborate explanation that what had been Caroline's room at one time was a spare or guest room at another while Mike was redecorating. Mike confirmed the redecorating but (for once sounding a little reasonable) claimed that the furniture moving involved in that alone would have made Anne's successful concealment of the book from him impossible.
Anne's basic story hasn't changed SINCE SHE PUT IT FORWARD. But that was a long way down the line. Prior to that she certainly expected it to be understood that either Mike's story was true and all that was known, or that she knew nothing about it. It was a real shock to both Feldy and Shirley when Anne suddenly came out with her claim.
Paul Begg and Martin Howells' questioning of Caroline - (and I suppose anything Feldy regarded as 'relentless' might well look like pummelling to anyone else!) - is, indeed, the most significant thing Anne's story has going for it. But assuming that Caroline's recollection was absolutely accurate, it is not too difficult to devise scenarios involving different assortments of conspirators which might explain it. But I shoudn't want to insist on that: scenario-devising has limited value in serious scholarship.
Likewise, Billy Graham undoubtedly did claim that the diary had, to his certain knowledge, been in existence from c.1940. His story, like Anne's, is not especially persuasive from inherent plausibility, and a simple scenario has been devised to explain that he lied (to save Anne exposure and embarrassment). But I wouldn't want to insist on that, either. I never met him, and beyond noting that he was certainly confused in the transcribed interview, I really cannot assess his evidence.
Joanne Lees? I don't personally think she killed Peter Falconio. I didn't see the televised interview - (the case hasn't aroused much interest over here) - but I was impressed by the Guardian's review of it which said that with the exception of one reporter, all suspicion of her by those who had been at the scene of the crime came from Chinese whispers.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:20 am | | Hi Martin,
Er, so in other words, you are saying that it is Anne's word against Mike's, when it comes to what furniture was moved where, what rooms were used for what purpose, what decorating was being done when, and consequently, whether she would have been able to hide the diary where he never found it?
If Mike had been given the diary by Tony Devereux, and knew nothing else, and Anne suddenly came out with a story about shoving the thing behind (in?) a (heavy?) cupboard (wardrobe?) in their (Caroline's?) bedroom (yes, it is confusing, isn't it? ), his natural reaction would be to protest that it would have been impossible for his wife to have concealed the diary from him successfully in their own home - and he was particulary peeved, I seem to recall, over this part of her story, and it would have made him look a bit of a fool, whether true or not.
On the other hand, if Mike was involved in forging the thing, and therefore knew this story was rubbish and could prove it, his peeved reaction, denying the possibility, and evidently hating anyone coming away with the idea that she had kept this secret from him, makes rather less sense, doesn't it?
You say that scenario-devising has limited value in serious scholarship. But this is real life, isn't it? Testing scenarios against what we know about the characters and actions and words of the players in the diary saga, to see if all the bits fit, or where one bit may cause the whole scenario to fall down, can't hurt, surely, when there is precious little else to go on?
Love,
Precious Little Else |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 06:39 am | | | Er... well actually, Caz... for what it is worth... my nasty suspicious mind felt that Anne was lying to me and rather desperately back-pedalling to recover from self-exposure. And I felt this immediately, long before the point was put to Mike. And, for what it is worth, it has been my impression whenever I have spoken to Anne or listened to tapes of her being interviewed that she is lying, and describes herself well when she says she is a very manipulative person. I think she is particularly skilled at using a rush of girlish laughter to deflect and redirect embarrassing questions. She knows I think this of her, and reacted with a sort of hysterical rush to the bathroom to avoid meeting me on one occasion, which won her sympathy from those who already sympathized with her, and extreme suspicion from one who had come with no real prior convictions. And I was appalled, the last time I spoke to them about Anne (which was years ago) that Keith and Shirley were prepared to accept the basic outline of Anne's story, although at that time at least, they were convinced that she was still not telling them the WHOLE truth. Now if she couldn't give two people who had done their damnedest for her 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' I was shocked that they gave her story any credence at all except as something like Mike's various tattered tales to be put into the rag bag for an occasional glance if something fitted perfectly with conclusions suggested by other independent evidence. (Conclusions, mind: not speculative scenarios). But I hesitate to give all this the highest public profiling, and generally keep out of the Diary debate, because I do not place the highest confidence in my own assessment of people face-to-face. Although I can question extremely well without leading, so that I uncover signs of people tripping themselves up, (as I feel occurred when Anne switched the room in which she said she'd hidden the diary), I do not feel confident that I can reliably spot a liar in person. I'm much too inclined to trust people, and would probably have swallowed Joe "Sickert's" twaddle, hook, line and sinker, if I'd gone and interviewed him with an open mind, like Stephen Knight and Melvyn Fairclough. I am trained in the examination of the written word and noting and allowing for my own responses to it, and have much more trust in spotting fraudulence, bad faith, concealed agendas, etc from the writing on the page. The inevitable corollaries of anger and disapproval I feel about Anne should be repressed unless or until proof positive emerges that she is lying; as if she is, then her deception of keith and Shirley is something I should probably never find it possible to forgive. So it's vital that we keep in mind that, whatever I feel when listening to her, this is only something I feel; not a proof of anything against Anne. And, having responded to your and Peter's challenges, I much prefer to get the hell out of diary discussions and say nothing. All the best, Martin F |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:03 am | | Wood,
Stop filrting with Mr Fido...Caz is getting jealous.
Mrs Fido
 |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 11:19 am | | So... is Ronnie Biggs still in jail?
Mrs. Fido:
You look nothing like Terry Jones.
Divia |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 08:25 pm | | Hi Martin
I knew that the lunatics would escape the asylum one day and follow us down here.
I get the strong impression that you don't wish to discuss the diary - that's cool, I can understand your reasons.
Going back to the Joanne Lees case for one minute, I taped the ITV broadcast a couple of days back and watched it several times.
With a very limited understanding of body language I set about analysing her reactions.
One "expert" in NVC (Derren Brown) says that it is not what someone does that determines if they are lying, it is rather the thing that breaks the pattern.
Thus, if someone constantly looks ahead whilst talking to you, then their eyes flick fleetingly to the left - they have lied at that moment.
There are supposed to be "cast iron" certainties of when someone has lied, for instance the old 'hand over the mouth' or, for some reason, touching one's nose.
Derren Brown says that is nonsense.
So I watched my tape of Joanne Lees being interviewed by Martin Bashir - and the really weird thing is this:
I am convinced she was telling the truth about the vehicle driving up behind hers and Peters.
I am convinced that she was LYING about the fire at the side of the road, but that was such a small detail that I couldn't understand why she would make it up at all.
Throughout the interview she constantly looked "up and to the right", which is supposed to be a sign that someone is supposed to be mentally visualising something.
I was impressed with that.
But she tripped herself up twice more.
Once when asked if the DNA from a third person, found on her t shirt, was blood, she answered "Yes", but her body language suggested she lied.
Then the crucial question, Martin Bashir put it to her:
"Did you kill Peter Falconio?"
Up until that point I was prepared to believe that she hadn't killed him, but her body language changed. Totally.
The really strange thing is Martin, that upon being asked that question she laughed.
I was reminded of it by your reference to Anne Barrett above.
So I think she lied about that.
So she lied about the fire at the side of the road, but she told the truth about there being a vehicle behind hers and Peters.
She lied about killing Peter, lied about the DNA from the third person and I am thus far convinced that she also lied about how she got her hands from her back to the front.
So far the Aussie police are doing a good job of making out that they believe her.
I genuinely believe that they have no evidence against her, otherwise she would have been arrested.
For instance, the camper van was parked up a short distance from where the "attack" took place. Either Joanne or the attacker put it there, right?
At the time of the attack Joanne was in the driver's seat of the camper van. If the attacker had driven it away would you have expected him to have moved the seat back?
No mention of this from the police.
Did he leave fingerprints, fibres, hair in the camper van?
Again no mention.
No mention of footprints either.
No footprints either at the scene of the 'shooting'.
In fact the only footprints they found at the scene were Joanne's.
It's a hell of a story.
Speak to you soon
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:51 pm | | Hi Peter,
I agree that it's a hell of an interesting case, but I really only know it from checking out the Brit press on the internet, which is not the most reliable way to keep up with things!
Many thanks for your tactful recognition of my wish not to be involved in the diary dispute, when my opinions are intensely derogatory to certain other people, but do not rest on proof; only what I see as probability combined with my own fallible impressions. (And it was my own fault that you asked me in, as I didn't resist a temptation to ask you whether your stated position on the boards was genuine).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Keith Skinner
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 04:46 am | | Dear Martin
Taking a little break from preparing my lecture at Oxford next term, discussing the shift from the concept of natural philosophy to the concept of exact science, (a concept which, sadly, our most esteemed colleague in Eeyore Street is unable to grasp), I thought I would take the opportunity of offering a little bit of clarification, context and perspective on your meeting with Anne Graham. I do this only because it seems to have now passed down into Diary Folklore that Anne fled hysterically to the bathroom because she could not stand up to the pressure of your questioning. This, unfortunately, is a misleading representation of what actually occurred.
You will recall that in late March 1996, I had suggested, (with Anne Graham's agreement and co-operation), that you should write to her with a list of questions, relevant to points in her story which you would like to explore. This you did but, regrettably, the letter, as I understand it, (and I did not read it but Paul [Begg] did), asked no questions but was more of an attack on the morality of what she had been responsible for allowing to happen. Essentially - lying to Harold Brough by claiming to know nothing about the Diary; lying to Scotland Yard by remaining silent during their investigation; lying to her husband by not telling him the truth: Let me quote from part of a fax Anne Graham sent to me on April 2nd 1996 in response to your letter:-
"His [Martin] interpretations of my statements make me believe that no explanations on my part could possibly influence him in altering his beliefs and that only the appearance of undisputed documented proof would change his attitude. As I am unable, as you know, to produce such proof, I am afraid that any further correspondence from my myself would only further prejudice my position in his eyes. As far as I am aware he does not know my reasons for not telling Mike the truth and even if he did I do not think he would either understand or believe me, the bare fact is that his reading of my character and supposed motives are so unreasonable that I am no longer under any illusion as to why he does not wish to meet with me."
Against this background, however, it was arranged that you should come along to Feldy's flat on May 21st 1996 to meet with Anne whilst she was in London for a few days. What I do not think you were aware of (and certainly I did not know) is that Feldy had not told Anne, until later, that you would be present. You stayed much later than I did, but whilst I was there I have no recollection of Anne storming out of the room or making hysterical rushes to the bathroom. She did, I concede, go to the loo on a couple of occasions - but then, so did everybody else. I do though have a clear memory of Anne's reaction when she came into the room to discover you sitting there, at a point when Feldy was telling you about Anne's father's war service and you had cracked a funny joke because Feldy, (true to form), had got the detail wrong, placing Mr. Graham in the wrong war, or on the wrong side! Unfortunately, Anne only heard the joke, which she took to be at her father's expense - and not, as intended, at Feldy's. So, the combination of realising who you were, together with her initial belief that you were diminishing the memory of her late father, caused her to walk quietly out of the room. But she did return and there were points later on, during your conversation with her, that she did become emotional and there were tears. Anne later wrote to me on May 24th 1996 :-
"I want to apologise to you for my behaviour on Wednesday last with Martin Fido and thank you for your support at a time when I know you are trying to control problems of your own.
I know that if I had not already been aware of Martin's valuation of my character I would not, could not, have responded as I did. Paul did not tell me Martin was coming down until I had arrived in London and my first reaction was to return to Liverpool, which would have been rather rude on my part, but on reflection would have been the better decision.
Had the four of us been able to meet as you had wished some time ago, without the benefit of my already knowing what he thought of me, I would have been much more myself and not defensive the minute he walked into the room. [ Note by KS - in fact it was Anne who walked into the room.] I even refused to shake hands with him which I would find incredibly bad mannered in anyone else and when he was sarcastic about my father in 1938, although I knew it was at Paul's mistake, I took it very much to heart and was deeply offended."
I apologise for going on at length about this one incident, but it did seem to me to be only fair and correct to provide an alternative eye witness account to the way this event has been characterised and perceived by your good self.
Now pardon me - it is finished - except that I do wonder what any of this has to do with Ronnie Biggs!
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 05:14 am | | Hi All,
Can I just make it clear that I am still acting as Keith's postwoman, although his name now appears, quite rightly, as the author.
Love,
Caz (quaking in her boots now she knows Martin can spot fraudulence, bad faith and concealed agendas from the writing on the page  ) |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 07:53 am | | Hi Keith,
Many thanks for the explanation. I only knew that when she saw me, Anne retreated bathroom-wards, and at some subsequent point somebody had to go and persuade her to come out. I didn't know that mythology now stated that she repeatedly headed for the bathroom when feeling choked or cornered; only that she showed a remarkable subsequent tendency to try and deflect the direction of conversation from difficult moments, or laugh them off.
Like you, I was unaware that she didn't know I was going to be there, as our "confrontation" was the sole object of the exercise as far as I was knew.
My letter to Anne followed the very long telephone conversation I had held with her at your request, in which the alteration of the room from her original statement was the only alteration of her story, and with that as the only clear veering off from her position, I was unable, as I said to you, to go further than Osric for public consumption: "Nothing neither way!" I couldn't prove she was lying and couldn't claim to be convinced that she wasn't. I certainly don't recollect the letter I wrote her as being based on an invitation to put any further questions to her. I thouht it was a response to something she wrote to me after our conversation. I can't recollect having any further serious questions to put, except possibly for Mike's suggested follow-ups about the interior of Tony Devereux's house (which she fumbled through in a way that could, as so often, have been interpreted either as genuine hazy memory of something seen only briefly, or fudging through a set of questions she couldn't answer). I remember my letter as a response to something I had received from her, and I am quite sure I was right to let her know, clearly and to her face, that I didn't believe her. Too many people were going around and bad-mouthing her without standing up to tell her what they thought and were saying.
The quotation you give from her letter is another splendid example of the difficulty of verifying Anne's stories from her own explanations and enlargements. It reads equally well as a sad and genuine account of an unhappy contretemps in which she was placed by others, or a a superbly manipulative emotional and self-pitying appeal to hang on to a sympathizer after something has not gone as well as she would have wished. You might feel that she was understandably upset by not having her story beieved when at last she had come out with the truth; you might think that attacking the challenger was a splendid smokescreen for her inability to answer the challenges. Taking all things into account, and knowing her much better than I do, you tend to come down on her side; I tend to come down aganst her. And back in Eeyore Street, the fence is once again strained by the weight of the Mighty Begg straddling it.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Keith Skinner
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 11:52 am | | Dear Martin
Many thanks for your response.
I beg to report that the long telephone conversation you had with Anne Graham occurred on the night of May 1st 1995. You may remember that I then spoke with both of you immediately afterwards and tape recorded your individual recollections of what had been discussed, whilst the detail was still fresh in your minds.
Fast forward to March 22nd 1996 when you fax to me the reasons for your stated position that the Diary is a modern hoax. I wrote back the following :-
"I accept your ten point summary, for thinking the Journal to be post 1987, is - in the main -based on a complete lack of understanding about the relationship between Michael and Anne - and an appreciation of the events which led up to the emergence of Anne and Billy's story. Add to that your personal experience of Feldy's methodology - the convenience of Anne's statement coming at a time when Feldy was having problems with his film deal - Barrett admitting to forging it - and it is little wonder you think the way you do! And, of course, you are not alone.
But you are wrong - and it is only because PtP ['Paul the Poltroon - Paul Begg'] and myself deeply care about you, that we have gone on at such enormous lengths. I actually agonised over this with Anne last night - and she was very sympathetic - and knowing your academic background, understood why you would have difficulty in being able to comprehend her situation.
I bring this up because your post 1987 feelings have to be synonymous with accepting the inescapable fact that this means Michael and Anne - and possibly Mr Graham - created the document.
Anne does not move from her story - and Barrett has admitted to forging it."
This was the background leading up to my suggestion that you and Anne should communicate with each other, to allow you to explore those areas of her story which troubled you - and to give her the opportunity of responding direct, rather than through an intermediary. Unfortunately, your letter to Anne seems to have been the catalyst for a complete breakdown in communication. As I mentioned in my previous post, I did not have sight of your letter to Anne, but Paul (Begg) did - and some insight into the content can be gleaned from Paul's fax to me, dated April 11th 1996 :-
"I am addressing this to you because I have already explained much of this to Ann on the 'phone. I can well understand why Ann is upset by Martin's letter, but I think she is rather more upset than would have been the case had she anticipated this kind of letter rather than the expected series of questions. This said, while I think Martin's assessment is one-sided and in places slightly naive, it is nevertheless an expression of legitimate doubts.
One must remember that on the basis of his own training and abilities, Martin has concluded that the 'internal evidence suggests a composition date sometime after 1987'. To the best of my knowledge this conclusion is based on a not altogether quantifiable post-87 "feel", plus the empty tin matchbox - and I would add the breasts by Kelly's feet. Now, if the Journal was composed post-1987, it follows that Ann must be lying. Martin perceives weaknesses in Ann's story which in his opinion raise legitimate doubts about her veracity. It is therefore easy to see and understand why he won't be shaken in his beliefs and has written, perhaps more bluntly than necessary, an honest expression of seriously held doubts.
Overall, I think Martin's observations are fair, though his 'evidence' is capable of interpretations other than those which he has given. I don't think he shows signs of having considered (or even being aware) of the alternatives."
I would like to say Martin how touched I am by the sentiments you expressed, concerning Shirley and myself, were it to transpire that Anne Graham has been consistently lying and deceiving people for the past ten years. For my part, it would not bother me at all if I was exposed as having been gullible or 'duped' - or indeed if Melvin Harris was proved to be totally correct in his reasoning. What is important is establishing the truth and being able to move on.
Finally, although I do believe Anne Graham's story, I am keenly aware that many people, including yourself, do not. It would be stupid of me to ignore this widespread feeling, which is why I am continually testing my own beliefs. I do hope I am not creating the impression that I am cemented into an entrenched way of thinking and will automatically defend or champion Anne Graham. But I did consider it important that people at least be aware of the other influencing elements which hover round your experience of Anne Graham. The book I am currently preparing with Seth Linder, chronicling the controversial ten year investigation into both Diary and Watch, should, we hope, give people an insight into the inside story and provide them with a broader perspective and understanding of what was going on.
Best Wishes
Keith |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 12:48 am | | Hi Keith,
I'll leave your superbly documented and dated posting to stand on its own as a wonderful preview of all we have to look forward to in your and Seth's book. I don't think I retained a copy of my letter to Anne, but I'll have a look and send it to you if I have it.
But not until Monday, as I'm off for the weekend with my brother and his wife and the Mighty Diff.
As always,
Martin |
|
|
|
|
