Mike’s statement in his sworn affidavit “it was no use, it was very small” makes absolute sense in the context of him requiring it for somebody to physically write up the narrative text he had created.
Three, sometimes four, sections to a page for daily entries with the month and year printed on top of each page.
Thanks Keith, so it was too small AND it had the year printed on each page, so just wasn't going to work.
I must say I am indeed enjoying the scrap between the smaller non-Manchester clubs for that third automatic Champions League place this season but we should probably see where we are after Liverpool's game tomorrow night before getting too excited about avoiding the CL play-offs.
Hi Sam--in regards to the 1937 donkey photo: a sad but hopeful jackass standing over something that's been dead and buried for 10 years. Perhaps as good a symbol of the Maybrick Diary Debate as one could hope to find...
Just for jollies, I watched Paul Feldman’s Maybrick Diary video the other night (avaiable on youtube). At the 9:11 mark, we see our old friend Mike Barrett:
"Tony was never capable of forging. I honestly don't believe he was capable of forging. Ok? [Slight pause for dramatic effect]. So if TONY DIDN"T FORGE IT, WHERE THE HELL DID HE GET IT FROM?"
Had I been drinking tea instead of beer, I would have nearly spit it out. It's Caz's old argument, straight from the Sad Donkey's mouth!
I had to wonder. Is Barrett merely playing dumb, or is he subtly setting up an argument that the Diary supporters will find useful for the next twenty years? "Anne and Mike are incapable of forging. I have met them and I honestly believe they are incapable of forging. So if they didn't forge it, WHERE THE HELL DID THEY GET IT?"
Of course, in the general scheme of things, isn't it often the case, when crimes go unresolved, or allegedly unresolved, that people have simply misjudged someone's capablities?
Sweet Constance Kent couldn't possibly have killed her little brother. Lizzie couldn't possibly have chopped up dear mom and dad with an axe. Mike Barrett was simply incapable of anything beyond a few children's puzzles. Not even capable of writing a sick note. Certainly not getting full length articles and interviews published in national magazines.
Yet, I am hearing from the same people that, on another day, simpleton Mike was able to achieve a virtual masterpiece of research. When everyone else failed, it was Mike Barrett who was able to take the five words "O Costly Intercourse of Death" from the diary, head down to the library (in the years before computer search enginges), stay sober for this monstrous effort, and not only locate the obscure five words of a 17th Century metaphysical religious poet, but find it in a secondary source (an essay in Sphere Guide), obtain a copy of this same uncommon book (as per Robert Smith), and then be sneaky enough to lodge a copy with his solicitor in order to falsely "bolster" his claims of forgery. Wow.
So my own position is pretty simple, and I think entirely rational. If Barrett was capable of the above masterpiece of research and deceit, as I have been assured he was, then I can only conclude that he was entirely capable of hoaxing the Maybrick Diary.
I've never accepted the portrayal of Mike Barrett as served up by the Diary authors. Mike's abilities seem to expand and contract like an accordian depending on how they wish to use him.
I was on the panel at the recent Liverpool Conference and the subject of the alleged ‘biscuit tin’ was never raised from the floor. Had we been asked about it, then I would have given “Direct...truthful responses”. Could you clarify why myself or any of my fellow panellists might have given indirect, untruthful responses please?
On a point of information...you say that:-
“We have recently been told the Diary was found in a biscuit tin.”
Are you able to identify the source of that statement for me please?
This is only meant to be a holding reply, kindly posted by James, until such time as my application to join the Boards is either accepted – or rejected. I assume nothing. But I will briefly say that I have never given much credence to the story of the Diary being found in a biscuit tin. However, it has now become part of the historical record and should, quite rightly, try and be accounted for and explained. And by ‘explained’, I do not mean pages of endless speculation arguing over the colour, size, shape, make and fate of the tin. My methodology is very similar to David Orsam’s – although our conclusions may differ – and when there is a difference, I will re-evaluate every step of the way the reasons why I have reached an alternative interpretation to David’s.
So, in the ‘case of the missing biscuit tin’ I will build on David’s previous post # 555 and try to identify the genesis for when this item first entered into the story.
Finally, I could not resist a gentle smile when I read:-
“...and Liverpudlian working men aren’t shy of making a bob or two from items that fall conveniently into their laps.”
Best Wishes, KS
Thank you for the reply Keith,
Your comment about 'endless speculation' over the details re the biscuit tin surprises me.
Because.. on jtrforums last year great import was put into this by Robert Anderson..who got it from a 'reliable source' himself that said tin story existed. So..with that in mind, I ask again all the questions..including the wrapper questions again.
You see..I don't care much for being blindsided time and time again..I just want straightforward answers to straightforward questions. I understand you hold no credence to the tin story..thats fair enough..but you must surely see that if a prominent person who is 'pro diary' starts pushing a story..it needs to be looked at thoroughly.
I dont think the story is true at all..because of the lack of ANY detail pertaining to this biscuit tin. Not even a lid is mentioned. No size..shape..colour..make. .nothing.
Because even for the most amateur of persons interested on this..it strikes clearly as a made up story to somehow validate the finding of this diary. It fails miserably imho.
That means..why is it being pushed as 'the' answer when it clearly is another bluff? And pushed by 'pro diarists' ?
All of which confirms what I thought 25 years ago. Invention and hoax. I will stick by the words of Stewart Evans who has explained in public recently that he was in the office of Feldman at the time and made more than one observation which convinced him then and there this Diary was a hoax..or fake.
And the reason Stewart Evans is reluctant to say exactly what he knows is to protect his friendships and those people's names and reputations. Which I think is mighty noble considering the implications otherwise.
In my honest opinion..it is high time this farce was put to bed forever. Too many people involving large sums of money and tens of thousands more having forked out for a copy of the book by Shirley Harrison to start with.
Some..maybe many.. may feel like this is one big con.
And it is about time imho those who actually know more than they say..tell the whole truthful story instead of letting this debacle carry on ad nauseum.
So... eleven questions I asked. Are you able to answer ANY of them please? If not..then just declare the whole biscuit tin story as a hoax. And we can ignore it.
4-0 to Chelsea.. the stuff we should be playing every week.
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE AND CHAMPIONS AGAIN. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
What do we know now that we didn’t when Robert's company, Smith Gryphon Ltd, published "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" by Shirley Harrison on 4th October 1993?
If it was a hoax, why hasn’t the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?
It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.
We can finally answer the following questions: When was it written? Where was it found? Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992? Where has it been for over 125 years? And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnson’s watch a genuine artefact from 1888?
from the original post that started it all up again. after hundreds of thread pages, the book and conference-what are the "answers" to these questions?
the claim seems pretty definitive-so what are they? otherwise the above statement is misleading at best. and this is the type of thing that sticks in my craw regarding the whole thing.
__________________ "Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
If I have, I'm sorry but I don't remember the name.
Even better than that, mate. Keith intends to come on board! In his own words: "So that people can voice their criticisms of my research methodology and findings together with their suspicions about my motives for remaining involved with this subject over the past 25 years - directly to me."
I was there for most of it, but I left before the end as I was making my way to Newcastle. I enjoyed it, to an extent, as I was happy to just have a little natter about it with people beyond this forum, which is always nice, though like I said, the overall level of what they had didn't exactly light my fire.
I think you met Dave at the cricket club talks, hosted by Beadle.
I'd like Keith to come aboard, as I'm sure the others will, as it'd be better to get to ask him all of these questions directly, and not have to wait for conferences which are too few and far between.
Not with you, mate. What hard to swallow coincidences are involved with a hoax created, say, prior to 1970, which is what the Rendell team concluded?
How would that affect which post house the hoaxer meant, assuming they were thinking of a specific watering hole?
David has outlined many of them already: for me, the Poste House will always be a major coincidence, that the writer was supposedly discussing a completely different pub, which nobody I have ever met in this city is aware of, nor is there any info available for anywhere, yet the writer managed to mention it and spell it in the exact same manner as it exists today, yet these are supposed to be two different pubs. That, to me, is just silly.
Not to mention "one-off instance," the listing of the items in the police report, and the others. Like I said, we're all aware of what these coincidences are, and there's enough to set alarm bells ringing in a logical mind.
I gave you his full name, Mike. Go check all the posts. I'm not running around after you, I'm a busy woman.
You gave me his initials and made some excuse for why you couldn't give me any more info, IIRC. If you could PM me the info, I'll go ahead and follow it up, I'm sure he's still around the city. I don't bite.
No need to be facetious, mate. Keith was thinking you might want to introduce yourself to him, so you could put to him all the questions you have raised here, only to treat the responses you get here with contempt and mockery - that's when you bother to read them.
Keith could only enquire if a Mike J. G. was on their list, as that was all the info he had about you.
I have no idea. I wasn't there. What article?
Poor taste, mate.
Poor taste, my arse, lol. The way some of you chat about Barrett is in poor taste, but I guess that's different, eh?
I can't say I was particularly arsed about meeting Keith or any of the players, tbh, not in a rude way, but merely because I wasn't there to relax, though I'd have liked to, but had I more time to schmooze, I'd have definitely said allo. I wasn't even able to have a pint!
David's article that was linked to on here, from his blog, I'm assuming. The article detailing the objections he had to the new book, which included bits on the "one-off" topic, and the details re: the grand national running times, etc.
Last edited by Mike J. G. : 01-22-2018 at 07:59 AM.