|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
So What is the Truth?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
So What is the Truth?
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 04:52 am |        | Hi Eliza,
That's precisely my point - if Mike confessed because he was covering up for someone, as you are suggesting, it makes no sense if that person was either unknown to Mike or to the investigation into the diary. Therefore I suggest that wasn't why he confessed. No one close to him has been identified as a potential forger that he hasn't already tried to accuse of being involved.
We know Mike didn't forge the diary himself - many doubt he had anything to do with its creation. So we know he was lying when he confessed. We also know he was earning out of this document, allegedly put together by others, and that his confession would have damaged his future income.
Only Mike can really know why he said he forged the diary when he clearly didn't do any such thing, or why he later accused Anne, both publicly and in a private letter to her, of writing it herself.
Mike's stated reason for confessing to something he didn't do appears most often to be that he wanted to "get back at Anne" for leaving him, and "get back at Paul Feldman" for being to blame for everything bad that had happened to him since the diary had come into his life. This could, of course, be just another lie, but if told as part of this covering up for 'someone close', it still leaves us with no clue as to who this someone close could possibly be, and why Mike would need to cover up for them if no one even knows they exist!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Eliza Cline
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 09:08 pm | | I admit I am baffled. Does anyone know if this guy Mike has some kind of mental instability.
I still suggest that he may be covering up for someone in his private life. Maybe someone unknown to the public.
Alternatively he might have confessed because he realized the diary had been shown to be a fake anyway, and maybe he thought he could get some kind of fame or glory if people believed him to be a brilliant forger. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 09:44 am | | Hiya Caz,
It's been a while, so apparently I've missed something... When was "We know Mike didn't forge the diary himself" proven? And how exactly was this proven?
Mike isn't particularly high on my personal suspect list, but there is nothing whatsoever to exclude him catagorically. And indeed, there are some very good reasons believe that Mike had at least something to do with it's creation.
Simply because his actions are not explainable by us at the moment doesn't exclude him as a possible forger. A guilty party can give a bad confession as easily as an innocent person can. Indeed, Mike's actions do not appear to make sense wheather he's guilty or innocent, so I don't think that there's anything there to allow us to leap to the unsupportable conclusion that he must be innocent simply because of the apparent incomprehsibility of his actions.
Regards,
John Hacker
|
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 01:45 pm | | Hi Eliza,
I'm sorry but I still fail to see why a forger who had not (and still has not) come to the attention of those investigating the diary, would need or want Mike to cover up for him by confessing, damaging future diary income in the process. You only need someone to cover up for you when you are already a suspect, or in imminent danger of being roped in as one. And Mike seemed to be doing most of the roping in by himself!
Certainly, it would make some sense if Mike confessed because people were already shouting "fake", and if he figured he could at least salvage something, in the event that they proved it, by claiming to be the faker and selling his story. But this could be the case whether he knows the diary is a recent forgery, or doesn't have a clue about its true origins, beyond the fact that it was given to him to 'do something with'.
Hi John,
Do you think Mike forging it is a remotely serious option then? From your point of view there may be nothing to 'exclude him categorically' and therefore he remains on your personal suspect list, although not particularly high. (Hmmm, care to give us more details of your personal suspect list then? What do you mean exactly by not 'particularly' high? Fifth on the list behind Tony Devereux, Gerard Kane, Anne and Billy Graham perhaps?)
But I have to consider the fact that none of the people who have been investigating Mike and the diary closely from the beginning appear to even include him on a list of people they suspect of having composed the text and/or hand-written it into the scrapbook - regardless of whether or not they believed him when he claimed to have passed the Crashaw quote to the composer/penman for inclusion, and therefore 'had at least something to do with its creation'.
I don't recall ever arguing that we should 'leap' to the unsupportable conclusion that Mike 'must be innocent simply because of the apparent incomprehensibility of his actions'.
But I would argue that perhaps you ought to think about what evidence there is for retaining Mike as a possible forger on your list, in the light of the conclusions reached by investigators on all 'sides' - beyond the fact that he brought the thing to London, made money from it and then chose to make various 'confessions' about its origins.
Any argument for Mike forging the diary surely has to be supported in the same way as anyone's argument for Maybrick writing it - or indeed, being the ripper. I am more than happy not to include Maybrick on a list of ripper suspects unless the diary were ever proved not to be modern, and probably not even then without further information emerging. After all, we have enough 'legitimate' ripper suspects to play with, and thousands of potential unidentified suspects too - not so with the diary forger, if it was created in the late 1980s, and if the assumption is that Mike and/or Anne must be connected with whoever did it.
I really don't think Mike should be on anyone's suspected forger list merely on account of there being so few other suspects they can consider, once they have concluded the diary is modern. Would he still be on that list if he had never confessed, and if people hadn't been willing to believe those parts of his confession statements that haven't been proved false, but have yet to be proved true? Ironic when you consider that those same people will, with justification, refuse to believe the parts of Anne's statements that haven't been proved true, but have yet to be proved false.
Perhaps that should tell us something?
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 25 September 2002 - 03:22 pm | | Hiya Caz,
Nope, I wouldn't care to share my list at this point, but I'm sure you'll be thrilled to hear that you're still on there, although Mike still outranks you. :-) And Kane isn't even on the list.
"But I have to consider the fact that none of the people who have been investigating Mike and the diary closely from the beginning appear to even include him on a list of people they suspect of having composed the text and/or hand-written it into the scrapbook - regardless of whether or not they believed him when he claimed to have passed the Crashaw quote to the composer/penman for inclusion, and therefore 'had at least something to do with its creation'."
That's certainly your perogative, but I don't consider the opinions of the investigators to be evidence of anything. We've got at least 5 investigators I can think of offhand that have been involved since the begining and their opinons hardly match on anything. 3 of them at least (Skinner, Harrison, and Feldman) place the creation date far enough back (Based on shaky evidence IMO) that a modern forger wouldn't have meaning for them. And indeed, I have not seen the 2 that seem to favor a modern origin (Fido and Begg) rule Mike out.
But realistically, even if they all leapt forward to exclude Mike I wouldn't be particularly impressed. Unless they can come up with some kind of evidence to prove their contention of course, because otherwise it's simply their personal opinion and frankly I think their closeness to the subject and the people involved is more likely to cloud their judgement rather than help it. (Specifically Mike's condition appears to have deteriorated over the years, and the person they're basing their opinions on is almost certainly far more limited in his capabilities than the Mike who would have been around at the time of the diaries forgery.)
As far as reasons to include Mike, the Sphere Guide leaps to mind. If he was not the source for the quotation, he was almost certainly told by someone with inside knowledge where it could be found. The coincidence required for it to be any other way is simply beyond the bounds of realistic possibility.
Addtionally, it was Mike's assertion that the ink was Diamine that led us to the knowledge that the ink contained chloracetamaide. That is certainly another suggestive little fact, despite Voller's testimony.
"Any argument for Mike forging the diary surely has to be supported in the same way as anyone's argument for Maybrick writing it - or indeed, being the ripper."
I agree with you here to a degree. Fortunately Mike has established himself as a good valid suspect. First off, Mike has tried to confess, which makes him a perfectly acceptable suspect to discuss. (I.E. He has tried to put himself in the frame whether he belongs there or not. While I have some qualms about discussing certain people as suspects, Mike has attempted to get himself taken seriously in that light and I'm not inclined to discard him simply because the "investigators" did. If in fact they have discarded him.) Mike has also shown what appears to be inside knowledge of at least some aspects of the diaries creation. (I would like to see someone come up with a reasonable explination of how Mike found the quote in the Sphere Guide without some inside knowledge.) The diary came from him and Anne, and they have profited by it. Simply because his confessions are "broken" doesn't negate any of these things.
And if he hadn't confessed would he still be a suspect? ABSOLUTELY! The bottom line is that Mike and Anne brought forth a forged document, the have lied about it's provenance, and tried to profit from it. This by itself puts them at the top of the suspect list. If they want to move themselves out of suspect central they need to provide some realistic answers as to where the thing came from.
And you never answered my question Caz. How do we know Mike didn't forge the diary? You've given me a reason why you believe as you do, but nothing that leaps to the point of letting us "know" that.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 08:19 am | | Hi John,
I’m not sure you are entitled to conclude that ‘a modern forger wouldn’t have meaning’ for Keith, Shirley or Feldy because they place the diary’s creation date too far back. I think their investigations might have been a little more serious, in-depth and complex than this makes them sound. Couldn’t it be that, because none of the suspects put forward to date (including me  ) looked to them like plausible candidates for having composed or penned this document, that this simply may have lent weight to a growing belief that it wasn’t of recent origin?
I wasn’t really thinking of Martin Fido or Paul Begg when talking about those most closely involved with Mike and the diary, and I wouldn’t like to speak for them - although I’d be mighty surprised to find Mike on either of their suspected composers list - if they ever compiled one. (The argument for Mike’s handwriting being similar to the diary appears to be non-existent - unless you know different.) I was, however, including Melvin Harris, as he has excluded Mike ‘categorically’ as composer and penman, claiming that he merely handled and placed a document forged by others.
I disagree most strongly that anyone’s ‘closeness to the subject and the people involved’ is more likely to cloud their judgement rather than help it. How on earth could anyone further removed from Mike and the investigation hope to do a better job of deciding whether or not he is the kind of person who could have put a hoax like this together? What do you think the police would say if you suggested that questioning those involved and interviewing possible suspects will only cloud their judgement?
You say Mike’s condition ‘appears’ to have deteriorated over the years, and that the person the closest investigators are basing their opinions on is ‘almost certainly’ far more limited in his capabilities than the Mike who would have been around at the time of the diary’s forgery. Leaving aside your presumption that Mike was even around when the diary was written, I’d like to ask how you can even guess what Mike’s ‘condition’ could have been like when you believe the diary was being created? And how on earth do you know what his capabilities were then, to be able to conclude that they ‘almost certainly’ became far more limited by the time he cashed in and came under the investigators’ scrutiny for the first time? I think you make some pretty staggering guesses here, considering they concern a man you don’t know and have never met, at a time when none of us had ever heard of Mike or the diary.
Your remarks about the Sphere Guide are irrelevant – we are not arguing about whether or not Mike was involved somehow – we are arguing about the evidence which leads you to suspect he could have forged ie composed and/or penned the diary himself.
It only became Mike's assertion that the ink was Diamine after it was found to be available in the shop where he claimed to have bought the diary ink – he went along with the theory, that’s all. If he’d told the papers to begin with that he used Diamine and produced the bottle, his initial confession might have been a tad more effective. We know Melvin Harris, in 1996, experimented by writing a sample using Victorian paper, a Victorian pen and iron-gall ink, to demonstrate how it would quickly look old and be unable to be dated. Keith showed this to anyone who was interested in Bournemouth almost a year ago. We were able to compare it with the actual diary and notice how very different the inks looked, and how Melvin’s sample looked far more bronzed and faded with apparent age. Now, if Melvin is right when he said again recently that we have yet to find anyone who can date an iron-gall ink, and if he believes Diamine, or a similar modern ink containing chloroacetamide, or some home-made mixture of iron-gall with a commercially produced ink, was used in the diary, he must surely have done similar experiments to see how these candidates among others compared with the diary ink after being left to age for a few years. Yet I haven’t seen any sign of Melvin producing a sample that matches up well with the diary. And I can’t imagine why not, unless, unaccountably, he limited himself to the 1996 experiment with simple iron-gall ink, despite believing by then that there was more to the diary ink than that; or unless he did the experiments and none of them have yet produced anything that looks like the diary ink.
‘Fortunately Mike has established himself as a good valid suspect.’ Again, he may have been involved, but we are talking actual forgery suspects right now – those who could have composed/penned the diary itself. I, personally, do not think Mike makes a good valid suspect for the composer or the penman, just because he brought the thing to London, made money out of it, then later wanted people to believe he wrote it himself. Your use of the word ‘fortunately’ betrays the fact that without Mike as the convenient ‘front man’, you’d be struggling to come up with alternative ideas for who actually sat down and conceived, researched, composed and copied the text into that scrapbook.
‘This by itself puts them at the top of the suspect list. If they want to move themselves out of suspect central they need to provide some realistic answers as to where the thing came from.’
But which suspect list are you now talking about, John? Suspects for what, exactly? I’m still talking about your personal composer/penman suspect list, where Mike isn’t particularly high, although he outranks me, and citizen Kane can breathe a sigh of relief as he doesn’t even feature.
Okay, I take it back – ‘we’ don’t know Mike didn't forge the diary. Perhaps everyone who thinks the handwriting doesn’t match, and those who feel the evidence firmly points away from Mike being the composer have had their judgement clouded by being too close to this man and looking into everything too deeply and too thoroughly. I should have limited it to being a strongly-held conclusion, rather than outright knowledge, that Mike didn’t do it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 10:56 am | | Hiya Caz,
"I’m not sure you are entitled to conclude that ‘a modern forger wouldn’t have meaning’ for Keith, Shirley or Feldy because they place the diary’s creation date too far back."
I'm entitled to conclude whatever I wish Caz. :-) It's seems fairly clear to me that if they believe the document to be old, that they are not likely to look at Mike as a serious forger candtidate for the same reason John Cleese hasn't been proposed as a Ripper suspect. Indeed, I have not seen any of them say that they believe Mike to be incapable of it. Considering their stated positions I really find it hard to take the failure of Keith, Shirley, or Paul to point the finger at Mike as even vaguely relevant. Please understand I have a good deal of respect for Keith and Shirley, but I'm simply not going to rely on their character assesments as to weather it's possible/likely for Mike to have written the diary.
"I disagree most strongly that nyone’s ‘closeness to the subject and the people involved’ is more likely to cloud their judgement rather than help it. How on earth could anyone further removed from Mike and the investigation hope to do a better job of deciding whether or not he is the kind of person who could have put a hoax like this together? What do you think the police would say if you suggested that questioning those involved and interviewing possible suspects will only cloud their judgement?"
First off, I don't believe that anyone is capable of telling weather someone is the "kind of person who could have put a hoax like this together" by assessing them as a person. People keep secrets, they lie to their loved ones, etc. And let's be frank about it, people's judgements are often wrong. Heck, serial killers typically fool everyone in their lives. And these interviews were hardly conducted by professional police interviewers now were they? But in general I don't believe anyone is capable of assessing weather another person is capable on doing such a thing. Trained interviewers can look for cues that a person is lying, but that's a different thing altogether. They go into the interview assuming the person is capable, they are trying to asses whether they in fact DID do it.
"Leaving aside your presumption that Mike was even around when the diary was written, I’d like to ask how you can even guess what Mike’s ‘condition’ could have been like when you believe the diary was being created?"
Er. By Anne's descriptions of his deterioration...? By the vast difference between the man she described and the rambling wreck I heard on tape? Indeed, as I recall Shirley made a large deal out of Mike's deterioration over the time she had known him. It seemed pretty self evident, but I will go back over what Anne said about Mike again in case I'm remembering incorrectly and rexamine the timeframe she's describing.
"Your remarks about the Sphere Guide are irrelevant – we are not arguing about whether or not Mike was involved somehow – we are arguing about the evidence which leads you to suspect he could have forged ie composed and/or penned the diary himself."
I of course disagree Caz. Once it's shown that he's likely to be involved it's certainly reasonable to consider that he could be the forger.
"Your use of the word ‘fortunately’ betrays the fact that without Mike as the convenient ‘front man’, you’d be struggling to come up with alternative ideas for who actually sat down and conceived, researched, composed and copied
the text into that scrapbook."
Are you saying that we should ignore Mike because he's too convienient? Even though he's shown what appears to be inside knowledge of the forgery, he's profited from the forgery, and indeed confessed to being the forger? I don't follow your reasoning there.
But yes, without Mike and Anne it's pretty hard to move onto other potential forgers because they are the ones who brought it forward, they've lied about where it came from, and there is no one else we can tie the book to at the moment. It's a practical difficulty in the case that only they can solve. They are certainly welcome to provide any information that would lead to the actual forger.. I for one would be greatly appreciative.
"Okay, I take it back – ‘we’ don’t know Mike didn't forge the diary."
Which of course is all I really wanted to hear. :-) I don't believe that Mike is likely to be the "one true forger". I think it's more likely that his role was peripheral. But that's based more on my own instinct more than any specific evidence, thus I am uncomfortable in discarding him as a possibility. I like it when things are backed up by evidence, and I am inclined to mistrust my own judgement in these things as I am Keith's or Shirley's.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Eliza Cline
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 12:31 pm | | | Frankly, after reading his inept "confession," I get the impression Mike Barret couldn't forge his way out of a paper bag. |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Eliza,
That's certainly a point of view. But I feel I must note that it's easy to "confess badly".
We don't know why Mike was trying to confess to creating the diary, so it's hard to read anything in to his confession in regards to his actual guilt.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 27 September 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Hi John,
A lot of what you say sounds perfectly reasonable. For example, why should you rely on other people’s judgement and character assessments when making up your own mind whether it’s possible, or likely, that Mike wrote the diary?
But I’d like to ask you how anything, or anyone, could ever convince you that Mike didn’t do it, if in fact he didn’t? It can be nigh on impossible to prove a negative – after all, even if everyone who ever knew Mike told you he’s just not the sort of chap who would/could have planned it and composed it; even if all the top handwriting experts in the world told you he didn’t pen it; you’d still be entitled to conclude that it’s possible he managed to fool them all. If you don’t believe anyone is capable of telling whether someone is the "kind of person who could have put a hoax like this together" by assessing them as a person, how would you go about testing your theory that Mike could have done it? I know this isn’t the same as a criminal investigation, but in such a case, suspicions need to be tested, with the aim of eliminating suspects. What would it take for you to eliminate Mike? What did it take for you to eliminate Mr Kane?
Of course you’re ‘entitled’ to conclude whatever you wish. But if you base a conclusion on speculation, which could be completely wrong, I am entitled to express my doubts about its validity. Would ‘I’m not sure your conclusion is valid…’ be more acceptable? It may seem ‘fairly clear’ to you that if people believe the diary is old they won’t look at Mike as a serious forger candidate. But this is based on a speculative assumption about the mental processes by which the various investigators reached certain positions, and the order in which they were reached. How do you know they weren’t already busy assessing Mike as the possible author well before forming any opinions about the diary’s age, for instance? We know the reason Melvin Harris discarded Mike as a serious candidate was not because he believes the diary to be old! So he must have had other reasons for doing so – based, presumably, on assessing the evidence and information built up gradually over time, piece by piece. I would hope that this is also the way every other investigator works, modifying their opinions where necessary until reaching a position where they are as certain as they can be that they haven’t missed a vital trick somewhere along the line.
Funny how you are ‘simply not going to rely’ on the judgement of those people who know Mike and have concluded that he didn’t write the diary, yet you happily rely on Anne’s word – Anne’s???, and are suddenly willing to trust her and Shirley’s judgement, when it comes to Mike’s deterioration, because it suits your argument that he might have been thought capable of composing the diary had the investigators known him in the days when you believe it was being put together.
Leaving aside this astonishing U-turn over what and whose testimony you are prepared to rely on, I would suggest that as you are relying on the ‘large deal’ Shirley made out of Mike's deterioration ‘over the time she had known him’, supported by Anne’s description of him that was vastly different from ‘the rambling wreck’ you heard on tape (in January 1995, I believe, when his life clearly appeared to have been wrecked by events post 1993), you should also consider that Shirley’s conclusions about whether he forged the diary or not would have taken into account what he was like back in early 1992, when he enthusiastically brought the diary to London; what ‘condition’ he was in then; and what she judged his limitations to be then. If she was cynically using the 1995 ‘rambling wreck’ image to argue this Mike couldn’t have forged the diary back in 1989, what was she doing playing up the changes she had observed in him since first getting to know the man in 1992?
‘Once it's shown that he's likely to be involved it's certainly reasonable to consider that he could be the forger.’
Yes, and people have considered whether Mike could be the forger or not, and those most closely involved in the investigation process, including Melvin Harris, have, after due consideration, concluded that he wasn’t.
When Mike decided to take the blame, or part of it, for creating the diary, it may have been easy for him to “confess badly” if he was guilty, but to what possible end? To give the false impression that he couldn’t forge his way out of a paper bag? If so, this ploy appears to have worked on Melvin Harris (except that he still believes Mike guilty of handling/placing someone else’s recent creation); it didn’t need to work on anyone who already thought he couldn’t have done it; and, of course, it didn’t work on you at all. So it hardly seems to have been worth the effort, especially when you consider the damage it did to Mike’s diary income, which presumably motivated him in the first place.
And while it may be easy to “confess badly” to something you have done, it must be far from easy to “confess convincingly” to something you haven’t. I can think of a much likelier explanation for Mike’s unconvincing performance than your suggestion that he designed it that way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 27 September 2002 - 02:54 pm | | Hey Caz,
"But I’d like to ask you how anything, or anyone, could ever convince you that Mike didn’t do it, if in fact he didn’t?"
If it were proven someone else did it I'd be convinced. :-) Nothing else leaps to mind offhand...
"It can be nigh on impossible to prove a negative – after all, even if everyone who ever knew Mike told you he’s just not the sort of chap who would/could have planned it and composed it; even if all the top handwriting experts in the world told you he didn’t pen it; you’d still be entitled to conclude that it’s possible he managed to fool them all."
Simply because his handwriting doesn't match the document would not rule him out at the author of the text. But I would be glad to see a bunch of handwriting experts take a peek at his writing. As long as the reports are made available, and the exemplars were taken under controlled circumstances, I would be happy to examine their conclusions and possibly rule him out as the penman.
"If you don’t believe anyone is capable of telling whether someone is the "kind of person who could have put a hoax like this together by assessing them as a person, how would you go about testing your theory that Mike could have done it?"
I assume everyone is capable of doing it that isn't physcially damaged in a way that precludes the possibility. The question isn't if they're capable, but if they actually did it.
"What did it take for you to eliminate Mr Kane?"
Kane has never made it on my list. There's no real reason to add him yet. The reasons bandied around for considering him to be a suspect are a little weak for my tastes and I have never had opportunity to examine any samples of his handwriting so... I'll leave him until there's a better reason to go back and look at him.
"Of course you’re ‘entitled’ to conclude whatever you wish. But if you base a conclusion on speculation, which could be completely wrong, I am entitled to express my doubts about its validity. Would ‘I’m not sure your conclusion is
valid…’ be more acceptable?"
Of course it would :-) But I don't think I'm wrong.
"It may seem ‘fairly clear’ to you that if people believe the diary is old they won’t look at Mike as a serious forger candidate. But this is based on a speculative assumption about the mental processes by which the various investigators reached certain positions, and the order in which they were reached. How do you know they weren’t already busy assessing Mike as the possible author well before forming any opinions about the diary’s age, for instance?"
I don't, if they would care to document such observations I would be interested to see them. However, as I don't believe the type of character analysis you're proposing is even possible, I doubt I would attach a lot of weight to it.
"We know the reason Melvin Harris discarded Mike as a serious candidate was not because he believes the diary to be old! So he must have had other reasons for doing so – based, presumably, on assessing the evidence and information built up gradually over time, piece by piece. I would hope that this is also the way every other investigator works, modifying their opinions where necessary until reaching a position where they are as certain as they can be that they haven’t missed a vital trick somewhere along the line."
I would hope so too, but unfortunately we both know that isn't the case.
"Funny how you are ‘simply not going to rely’ on the judgement of those people who know Mike and have concluded that he didn’t write the diary, yet you happily rely on Anne’s word – Anne’s???, and are suddenly willing to trust her and Shirley’s judgement, when it comes to Mike’s deterioration, because it suits your argument that he might have been thought capable of composing the diary had the investigators known him in the days when you believe it was being put
together."
Tsk tsk. I don't pick and choose to "suit my argument". Indeed, I don't have "an argument".
There are a lot of good reasons to accept Anne/Shirely's word as far as Mike's condition
goes. If for no other reason, it's something that could be independantly confirmed, so lying about it would be dangerous and pointless. (I'm willing to take Anne's word on verifiable facts. If she says that grass is green I have no reason to doubt that. But anything she testifies to that cannot be independantly verified is certainly suspect.)
And what I said specifically was "but I'm simply not going to rely on their character assesments as to weather it's possible/likely for Mike to have written the diary." That's an inherently subjective call. Mike's apparent deterioration is a slightly more objective thing to observe. It's a much simpler question. And for the record, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Shirley's honesty. I don't agree with her reasoning but my (admittedly fallible) instict suggests she's honest. (Indeed, I think she's one of the few Ripper authors that actually BELIEVES what she's saying.)
"Yes, and people have considered whether Mike could be the forger or not, and those most closely involved in the investigation process, including Melvin Harris, have, after due consideration, concluded that he wasn’t."
Good for Mel! If he wants to share the evidence that led him to that conclusion I'd be willing to listen. Otherwise I'm not interested in his unsupported conclusions regarding Mike than in those of Shirley, Keith, or Paul's.
"When Mike decided to take the blame, or part of it, for creating the diary, it may have been easy for him to 'confess badly' if he was guilty, but to what possible end?"
Attention. If he makes a final, verifiable confession and tells all, he can't make everyone jump when he comes up with a new story. I little doubt that this is his motivation in the endless confessions regardless of weather he's guilty or innocent.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 05:07 am | | Hi John,
'I assume everyone is capable of doing it that isn't physcially damaged in a way that precludes the possibility. The question isn't if they're capable, but if they actually did it.'
Are you serious? So, in other words, anyone of any education or intelligence or skill or character or personality or self-discipline or motivation could have composed and produced this forgery and kept the thing going for more than a decade, and kept himself in the public eye throughout, because he loves the attention, yet still not be found out - presumably as long as the investigators, researchers and experts were a bunch of idiots, whose opinions all conflicted and who could be manipulated and twisted round little fingers and..... you astound me. I'm surprised we haven't seen a load more fake diaries floating around if anyone could have achieved all this.
You say you don't agree with Shirley's reasoning, but do you know what her reasoning consists of when it comes to deciding that Mike isn't a forger? Oh I forgot, it doesn't matter, because you don't think anyone could tell either way. So if I heard someone in another room playing a piece competently on the piano, I wouldn't be able to conclude that it wasn't my hubby doing it, because he's got eight fingers and two thumbs, and he could have been having secret lessons for all I know, that no one else knew about either except his teacher who was sworn to secrecy?
I'm sorry, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Have a great weekend.
Love,
Caz
PS BTW, any ideas why Melvin was experimenting with plain iron-gall ink for his 1996 sample, when by that time he was convinced the forger had used Diamine? Wouldn't the obvious thing be to do a similar sample using Diamine, to be compared with the diary ink after, say, three years, if the theory is that it was finished circa 1989 and first seen by the experts in 1992? I can't believe such a simple test would not have been thought of and at least tried, since he went to the trouble of doing the iron-gall one. What do you think? |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 09:34 am | | Hey Caz,
"Are you serious? So, in other words, anyone of any education or intelligence or skill or character or personality or self-discipline or motivation could have composed and produced this forgery and kept the thing going for more than a decade, and kept himself in the public eye throughout, because he loves the attention, yet still not be found out - presumably as long as the investigators, researchers and experts were a bunch of idiots, whose opinions all conflicted and who could be manipulated and twisted round little fingers and..... you astound me. I'm surprised we haven't seen a load more fake diaries floating around if anyone could have achieved all this."
Yes, I am quite serious Caz. There's nothing in the diary that suggests an extraordinary intellect was required. There's no evidence that higher education was needed.
What we have here is a transparent fake, that is fooling very few people. Most serious researchers discarded it as an item of genuine interest a long time ago. Those of us here are the exception. There aren't that many of us here at the moment, and it's been a long while since we've had a believer around.
As far as the researchers go, you're certainly welcome to your opinion of them. I don't know them myself, so I wouldn't hazard a guess. I try not to delve into why people believe in the diary. I disagree with a lot of people, that doesn't mean I consider them idiots. I just accept that they're wrong and leave it at that. :-)
And there have been quite a few fake diaries Caz. Try doing a few internet searches. I think you'd be surprised. :-)
"You say you don't agree with Shirley's reasoning, but do you know what her reasoning consists of when it comes to deciding that Mike isn't a forger? Oh I forgot, it doesn't matter, because you don't think anyone could tell either way. So if I heard someone in another room playing a piece competently on the piano, I wouldn't be able to conclude that it wasn't my hubby doing it, because he's got eight fingers and two thumbs, and he could have been having secret lessons for all I know, that no one else knew about either except his teacher who was sworn to secrecy?"
Sigh. I'm having trouble expressing myself on this point I fear. If you hear someone playing the piano it's of course reasonable to make conclusions about who is actually playing it.
What I don't believe is that you can take an arbitrary person, and based on your perception of their personality say "they can't play the piano" with any degree of accuracy. This is even more true for the sort of thing we are discussing here, because the forgery of the diary is a criminal act and the person would probably automatically be trying to hide their "criminal side".
If Shirley would like to explain why she thought it was impossible for Mike to forge the diary I would truly be fascinated. But I am not going to make her argument for her, or even assume that she has one. I really would like to meet Shirley. I think she'd be a fascinating person. She sounds to be a very honest person, and she did a good job on the basic research. And yet, she came to the conclusion that the diary is real. A conclusion we both disagree with. So it appears to me that she's not infallible, so I'd prefer to examine her actual reasoning.
It's back to our differing approaches again Caz. You put a lot of value in the opinions of the various scientists and researchers. You also like to speculate on their line of thought. I try not to do that, to the degree that is possible. I want to see the evidence and make my own judgments. It is not meant as disrespect.
I disagree with my coworkers all the time regarding how to approach certain problems. We're all educated. We all have many years of experience. But we think differently. Nobody is perfect, and everybody makes mistakes sometimes. We look at each others reasoning, we try to find the holes in them and we get a better solution because the problem has been approached from different directions. And the same principle applies here.
We should never blindly accept the conclusions that are presented to us. We should examine everything put in front of us as carefully as possible. I will not accept that Mike is not capable of forging the diary because Shirley MIGHT have looked at his capacity. She might have, she might not have. I have no way of knowing because she hasn't even made that argument to my knowledge. If she were to make that argument then I would want to know what evidence/observations she's basing her conclusions on. Then I would be in a position to evaluate her argument.
As far as speculating about Melvin goes, I have no idea Caz. Melvin has not been particularly forthcoming about his reasoning.
You have a good weekend too Caz!
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 01:25 pm | | Hi John,
‘There's nothing in the diary that suggests an extraordinary intellect was required. There's no evidence that higher education was needed.’
That’s fine – but don’t you think people have been assessing the various suspects; asking those who have known them for years; looking at examples of their writing skills etc before coming to any firm conclusions about whether or not any of them are likely to have produced a document like the diary?
You say there have been quite a few fake diaries. I know about the Hitler and Mussolini ones and how quickly their creators came unstuck. I would be amazed if there have been any since the Maybrick Diary emerged, where the forger has been happily confessing and retracting his confessions for several years, playing with the investigators and the experts without a single one of them being able to finally pin the thing on him. But maybe I am soon to be amazed.
Yes, forgery for financial gain is a criminal act and the person would probably automatically be trying to hide their "criminal side". Yet in Mike’s case he was quite happily saying “Look, here’s my criminal side – I forged this diary, take me away, boys”. It’s a strange game of bluff and double bluff if he knew he had done something criminal but was gambling on the fact that as long as he loused up his confessions the police would not take him seriously or be interested in trying to winkle the whole truth out of him.
I do value some of the opinions of some of the researchers and investigators, John. But this has mainly been a gradual process over the years since I became interested in this minor mystery. I attend the Cloak & Dagger Club; I’ve met and talked extensively to many people there, including Paul Begg, Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison – and of course I saw Mike in action at the April 1999 meeting, and have also met and chatted with Anne Graham. I wasn’t aware that I went in for that much speculating on other people’s line of thought. If I’ve seen their opinions in print, or if they’ve offered them to me verbally, then of course I will feel able to refer to those opinions. Only recently I wrote that I couldn’t speak for certain people when it came to whether Mike would be on their list of diary forger suspects, but anything I do say is based on what I’ve actually read or heard of their views. I too like to see the evidence for myself and make my own judgements. That’s why I wanted to meet these people and learn more about their reasoning and judgements.
All I can say is that, based on everything I’ve read, seen and heard over the last four years, I’m as certain as I can be that we will have to look elsewhere for our composer/penman.
And believe me, that's quite something coming from someone as sceptical as I am. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Eliza Cline
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 09:49 pm | | | The forger of the Hitler diaries was a highly educated historian, and even he couldn't pull it off...Whoever wrote the Maybrick diary has an understanding of psychopathology, a feel for Victorian prose style, and a knowledge of the effects of arsenic poisoning. I don't see how Barrett got knowledge of these things, and he doesn't tell us in his confession. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 01 October 2002 - 04:31 am | | Hi Eliza,
And in April 1999, Mike told us at the Cloak & Dagger meeting that making the ink for the diary was simple - he just added sugar to the Diamine he claimed he had purchased.
We know that the simple iron-gall ink, which Melvin Harris predicted the forger would have used because no one would be able to date it, wasn't used.
But has Mike really demonstrated any inside knowledge about the ink used? It's not possible to tell from the information we have at present. The evidence does not show that Mike bought Diamine, or had even heard of this ink before someone else mentioned the name to him. And no one has identified the diary ink as wholly or partially Diamine, with or without added sugar.
So the mystery goes on and Mike, if he is our forger, or is even involved, is yet to be rumbled. And the one piece of solid evidence pointing to his involvement - which was obtained almost eight years ago, has yet to be examined by independent experts. The reason? Melvin Harris says he won't release Mike's Sphere volume, containing the Crashaw quote that appears in the diary, until the scientific reports on the diary and watch appear in full on the Casebook. We are waiting for either Melvin or John Hacker, who have both expressed a desire to see these reports available to all, to obtain the necessary permissions and make it happen.
Hopefully, we'll all have more information and evidence to work with soon.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
