Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Anne claimed that the Diary had been in her family for decades, that she hid it in her house....

I think you're supposed to forget all that and never mention it again. It's like talking about the old wife in front of the new wife. Very embarrassing and upsetting.

And I think even a dodgy electrician would smell a rat if they found an old diary squeezed into a modern tin.

Hi Caz. Either that, or this 'dodgy' electrician had never actually seen the Diary, nor anything like it, and thus like everyone else who first hears about it, assumed it was a smallish book suitable for a biscuit tin---more akin to the outpourings of a Bridget Jones or a Samuel Pepys or a Wimpy Kid than the oversized photo album eventually bought to London by Barrett.

[John Wheat]

Like your theory Mike Barrett collated James Maybrick literature...


You NEED to do better than this, John 'UNSPECIFIC' Wheat...

It's not my theory. I've just stated this was the impression David gave me. Do please read others posts correctly before commenting on them. All you seem to do is back up Caz with posts that are incorrect.

[StevenOwl]

I think you're supposed to forget all that and never mention it again. It's like talking about the old wife in front of the new wife. Very embarrassing and upsetting.

Why though? What is it about Anne's story that makes it so obviously false? I could be wrong, but I'm sure Keith Skinner couldn't find any issues with Anne Graham's provenance for the Diary at the time she first revealed it. The thing I find hard to accept if Anne made the story up is that she was happy to put her frail, dying father through 2 interviews with Feldman to back up her story, never mind the fact that he did back it up without dropping any obvious clangers.

I'm not saying I believe Anne, but I've never been able to fully discount her story. I'm certainly very curious to hear why others are so completely satisfied that she made the whole thing up.

[Kaz]

Do please read others posts correctly before commenting on them.

Couldn't agree more, I'm glad you took my advice and looked in the mirror...

Someone acquiring a Victorian diary, either buying or borrowing a load of books on James Maybrick and then suddenly having a diary allegedly by James Maybrick purporting to be The Ripper has either forged it themselves or someone close to them has forged it. Anyone who thinks different is a complete idiot.

The likes of caz has forgotten more than you'll ever know about the diary... unlike most on here she actually met Mike Barrett.

Think before you post, John, and stop claiming we're taking them out of context.

[Kaz]

Why though? What is it about Anne's story that makes it so obviously false? I could be wrong, but I'm sure Keith Skinner couldn't find any issues with Anne Graham's provenance for the Diary at the time she first revealed it. The thing I find hard to accept if Anne made the story up is that she was happy to put her frail, dying father through 2 interviews with Feldman to back up her story, never mind the fact that he did back it up without dropping any obvious clangers.

I'm not saying I believe Anne, but I've never been able to fully discount her story. I'm certainly very curious to hear why others are so completely satisfied that she made the whole thing up.

I'm here re-reading feldmans book...its pure drudgery... the information he produced was staggering.


For what its worth, also, I've not put annes testimony to bed. the under the floorboards conclusion has too many holes..

Remeber the diary signs off with saying "I place this now in a place were it shall be found"... how likely did he think it would be 'found' by hiding it under a floor board?

[caz]

I got the impression from posts by David on this very thread that Mike had taken a load of books out on James Maybrick. If David has not said this then I am wrong. However you'd be better off taking it up David.

I doubt it.

I thought David was saying quite the opposite in fact, if you are referring to all those adverts he posted.

In any case, how do you imagine David would know what books Mike took out on James Maybrick?

Poor David. It seems even his most loyal supporters don't really pay attention to him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I do read my own posts properly.

So you actually meant to write this:

I asked for evidence proving that the diary was a modern forgery. So far no one has posted anything that proves it's a modern forgery. Considering the amount of backtracking over the diary surely it's up to those who believe it to be true or even a modern forgery to provide evidence of this?

So David hasn't given you any evidence to help prove it's a modern forgery.

I see.

You might be better off taking it up [with] David then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I think you're supposed to forget all that and never mention it again. It's like talking about the old wife in front of the new wife. Very embarrassing and upsetting.

That's very amusing as well as very apt, RJ. There is a distinct tendency where the Diary's concerned for pairs of very thick blinkers to be donned; I don't think Anne's story is true...but it could be.

Graham

[caz]

I do read my own posts properly.

However you'd be better off taking it up David.

I have no intention of taking anything up David.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's not my theory. I've just stated this was the impression David gave me. Do please read others posts correctly before commenting on them. All you seem to do is back up Caz with posts that are incorrect.

Unlike you, John. You back up David by showing you don't read his posts any more carefully than you do your own.

What a shambles.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

I have no intention of taking anything up David.

Love,

Caz
X

Nor me, although there is something I'd like to take [up] with you, caz

[caz]

I think you're supposed to forget all that and never mention it again. It's like talking about the old wife in front of the new wife. Very embarrassing and upsetting.

Cute, rj. But who for?

I thought you were supposed to test every claim and keep on testing, in an effort to eliminate possibilities and see what you end up with.

For any researcher or investigator, or even an armchair commentator, I'd think it would be far more embarrassing to be seen clinging on to Mike Barrett and his forgery claims to the exclusion of all others, crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best.

Embarrassing - but I imagine more comforting than upsetting.

Merry Christmas All.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Couldn't agree more, I'm glad you took my advice and looked in the mirror...





The likes of caz has forgotten more than you'll ever know about the diary... unlike most on here she actually met Mike Barrett.

Think before you post, John, and stop claiming we're taking them out of context.

Considering the diary is a forgery she's wasted a lot of time.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes it's a forgery. Written between 1890 and 1895 by the actor George Grossmith with help from the Playwrite and Journalist Harry Jackson Wells Dam.

[Abby Normal]

Yes it's a forgery. Written between 1890 and 1895 by the actor George Grossmith with help from the Playwrite and Journalist Harry Jackson Wells Dam.

Agree. Except it was written by Dr. Jekyl with help from mr Hyde.