Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Mike J. G.]

Did you, Mike? Why's that then? Besides, I thought you didn't believe in any such visit.

You understand my use of the word "thought", right? lol. I was lead to believe they took it to "the uni." Did they, or didn't they? If so, why is there no info on where they took it, who they called, and who they met? They'd be obvious questions to ask. Put it this way, I don't think it seems likely that they did visit "the uni," as there's a number of such buildings, and none that do open-days for inquisitive random blokes who've found old books.

I have no idea. Not sure why you're asking me, as I don't think any such visit - if it happened as Arthur Rigby described - could have taken place during a tea break or lunch hour on floorboards day. He was working in the house for 8 hours.

Love,

Caz
X

I thought you did believe it? Fair enough, then this is something we agree on. I think the uni visit was an invention, and that begs the question, why did they invent such a story if this was a real event?

[Mike J. G.]

If you need to lie, Mike, may I suggest you take a step back and work out why?

I've already told you the name of the extremely nice, local pub history buff who indicated to me where the Liverpool posthouse was, and I've already told you that the former landlord of Rigby's in Dale Street indicated the same building to Robert Smith when he was there back in the 90s. Neither of them directed us to the tiny Poste House in Cumberland Street, even though this is much nearer to Rigby's than the Old Post Office.

Love,

Caz
X

You didn't, though, Caz, you gave me his initials. What am I supposed to do with his initials? Can you repeat his name here and give me some info for how I'd get in touch with him? PM me if you like. I can't just take your word for it, Caz.

[Mike J. G.]

In that case, Henry must have completely failed to bring this oversight to my attention, or was too much of a gentleman to do so.

Since you didn't quote Henry's post when quoting my response, I assume you are not actually asking me to find it and try again.

Love,

Caz
X

Nah, I was just letting you know that you failed to address literally any of his post, and I don't really feel it's necessary to quote his post, as I'm sure you knew what post I was talking about, and I'm more than sure that you knew you weren't addressing it at the time!

[Mike J. G.]

So what's the deal with nobody asking the electricians any relevant questions? Is this James fella planning to ask any actually valid questions?

[Kaz]

No, mate. As I say, I was in a bit of a hurry as I actually have a life to lead! lol. I'm a busy man, Caz. I didn't have time to "challenge" an old bloke about his hobbies....

Eh?

By your own admission :-

I live right next to Riversdale road and have grown up with a vested interest in the subject of the Maybricks' as well as a separate interest in the Ripper, and have grown up knowing the family of Tony Devereux

So you get yourself in a room full of like minded people and you don't raise a point? Ask a question? you're suddenly "in a hurry" ?


Little surprised at that, Mike, especially considering the way you conduct yourself on these boards.



BTW, Any news on the Cricket Club?

[Scott Nelson]

So what's the deal with nobody asking the electricians any relevant questions?

I thought Scotland Yard did this during their investigation in the early-mid nineties?

[Mike J. G.]

Eh?

By your own admission :-





So you get yourself in a room full of like minded people and you don't raise a point? Ask a question? you're suddenly "in a hurry" ?


Little surprised at that, Mike, especially considering the way you conduct yourself on these boards.

I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to even mean, lol. Most of the things I wanted to ask were already being asked, not to mention the fact that I'd rushed in to meet a friend and was set to travel from Liverpool to Newcastle that very night with less than an hour's window. How do I conduct myself on these boards? lol. I'd have loved to have had a bit of time to mill around, but between the many ye olde heads already in there, and the fact that it was bloody roasting, I was more content to hear their lack of evidence and get on with my night.

I was led to believe that David's article was being passed on to Keith, and the majority of what I intended to ask was already included in David's piece, in fact, all of it was.

My interest in the subject remains what it is, it didn't rise or fall with the conference, which, like I said, was pretty underwhelming overall.

BTW, Any news on the Cricket Club?

Nope, not exactly, I was given an email for a woman who works within their records(?) department, or something along those lines, but never got round to messaging her, though I may do it sometime this week. Today is my only day off, and as you can see, I struggle to get on here often, so when I do, I have to go back and read what I've missed.

[Mike J. G.]

I thought Scotland Yard did this during their investigation in the early-mid nineties?

If they did, and they asked about the university visit, then I've not seen the transcript. So far, I've seen no information about it, which is why I'm very interested to know who they decided to call, where they went, and how they managed to get a meeting organized that day, as well as who the meeting was even with.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

Keith Skinner looked out for you at the conference, expecting you to say hello and challenge him on all sorts. He even checked the attendees list with no luck and came away assuming you didn't book your place after all.

Of course, he was also assuming your username was your real name, which is not necessarily the case. So were you just too shy to speak to him when you had the chance? It's a great pity because you could have cleared up some issues with the man himself and shared the results with us here on your return.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, my name is quite clearly longer than "Mike J. G." lol. How would Keith know what I even look like? I've got one picture on here on my profile; who was he looking out for, a man with "Mike J. G." written on his forehead? My name would've been down with my surname, if it was even down at all, as I bought my ticket on the day. I was supposed to have one booked by a friend, but no cigar.

Like I said to Kaz, the questions I wanted to ask were already being discussed, wasn't David's article passed on to Keith? If Cheggers ever wants to meet me in the Kingsman for a natter, he can give me a heads up via one of his devout followers on here

[Henry Flower]

In that case, Henry must have completely failed to bring this oversight to my attention, or was too much of a gentleman to do so.

Since you didn't quote Henry's post when quoting my response, I assume you are not actually asking me to find it and try again.

Love,

Caz
X

I am nothing if not a gentleman, Caz. I also recognize the futility of all this. Until there is some solid evidence supporting the floorboards theory it's all just speculation. You must agree that, regardless of the necessity of further floorboard research, the current state of evidence leaves Mike and Anne as the only show in town regarding the provenance (and therefore most likely the creation) of the thing. The fact that there are questions to be asked about that scenario doesn't mean we have any solid evidence supporting any other origin. None that I've seen anyway. Do you know different, beyond a coincidence of dates that might imply that floorboards were lifted about 50 seconds before Mike phoned London to enquire re publication? As I say, I find that not only unconvincing but actually counterproductive, and everything else seems to be hypothesis on hypothesis built on that foundation.

I don't want to labour it, because I agree with you, Caz, that even if it's not remotely convincing as the Diary of either JM or JtR, it's interesting and worthwhile to find out what it is and where it came from. (Hint: Mike and Anne Barrett forged it!) Though I do want to know: you seem somewhat invested in the floorboards story. Most people would suggest, I think, that if it can be shown to have been uncovered beneath the Battlecrease floorboards, that tilts the balance towards it being the real deal. It would be just plain weird for an old forgery to have been hidden there while the pranksters all slowly died-off with no intellectual satisfaction.

So what's your take on that? Any suggestions? Or are you publicly hedging your bets while secretly inclining towards believing it might be genuine?

[Henry Flower]

Would it be presumptuous to ask, Caz, that you lay out briefly what you currently suspect to have happened? With the caveat that of course investigation is ongoing and the evidence cuurrently incomplete?

[Scott Nelson]

It would be just plain weird for an old forgery to have been hidden there while the pranksters all slowly died-off with no intellectual satisfaction.

The forgers would not necessarily have to be the ones who put it under the floorboards.

[Henry Flower]

The forgers would not necessarily have to be the ones who put it under the floorboards.

That's very true, Scott.

And here we go - down the rabbithole One hypothesis built on another, added layers of hypothesis brought in to paper over the cracks in the first layers, and further layers will be needed when holes are discovered in the cosmetic second layers.

I'm just going to call my friend Occam and ask him to get sharpening. He's going to be required here.

[caz]

Was he treated in hospital for alcoholism prior to April 1992? I don't think so.

You are probably right, but in my long experience [I was married to a very heavy drinker, who had at least one alcoholic relative] people don't become full-on alcoholics overnight. Those I knew had always been heavy drinkers, but managed to handle it for many many years before it got the better of them. I assume only Anne would know how heavy Mike's drinking was at any time prior to 1992. According to an article in the Daily Post, from September 1998, Anne claimed that Mike had begun 'drinking heavily' in 1988, which was when they moved to Goldie Street. But then Anne is not exactly a reliable source, so who knows? Clearly, Shirley and co could only comment on what Mike was like drunk and sober after April 1992, and would have known as much as you or I about earlier years whenever Mike was having a hard time of it, with health, work related or financial problems and so on.

And we are also told by Harrison: “it was clear that when he drank he lost his grasp on reality”. As quoted above, "another side would emerge when he was drinking".

So it's perfectly obvious that Mike needs to be judged at a time when he was sober because if he was relatively sober prior to April 1992 it could make a huge difference to his capabilities.

I agree, but we can't judge him if we don't know how sober he was, during the period he is meant to have been working on the diary's creation. Maybe Anne dated his heavy drinking back to 1988 to cover that period?

But none of us can say anything about Mike's creative writing skills or his personality prior to April 1992 (nor Anne's) nor can any of us say anything about his capabilities or abilities to produce the diary, especially in concert with Anne.

I recall at least one example of Mike's unaided work, from before 1992, in the form of a rude riddle, which was not published for painfully obvious reasons. Presumably it was not something Anne fancied 'tidying up' for him.

It's a pity the same JtR and Maybrick sources identified by others as a modern forger's 'must have' literature didn't feature in Mike's research notes or any of the interviews he gave, or even when he was making his forgery claims. Not even when steaming drunk did anything slip out to support the idea that he knew what these sources were, never mind used them himself.

That might help rj with his 'novella' theory, because he could simply say it was Anne who did all the research, which would also explain why Mike appeared to know so little about the two subjects when both Paul Begg and Keith talked to him in the early days.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In what world, I wonder, does the expression "made available" mean published in a book?

When I said "if you quote from one part of a document the rest of it needs to be made available" how is it possible, even for the Great Misunderstander, to think that I am saying that an author has to "quote every word of every source document or refrain from quoting anything at all"?

Surely it's not possible for someone to be so confused is it?

But it actually seems to have happened.

I used Inside Story as an example, because when you wrote "made available", I assumed you meant "to all", which implies in the public domain, in whatever form. I'm not sure what difference it makes whether quotes selected from a longer transcript are "made available" here, on a website, or in print in a book. But evidently you have a huge problem with the former for some reason.

And why would the same person then say "Inside Story could never have been published on that basis"? What did they have to hide I wonder?

You thought that was what I meant? Really?? Even though I gave you the bleedin' obvious reason, that the book would have been 'the size of Croydon' had we quoted entire transcripts of every conversation recorded???

It should be perfectly obvious that one should not quote selectively from documents which no-one else can check.

But apparently you aren't bothered when it's done in book form? Is that what you're saying, because I fully admit I am confused about where and why you are drawing the line?

I made the same point when I referred to it being disgraceful that Mike's research notes were being withheld even though Shirley Harrison had quoted partially from them and used them to support her rebuttal to Melvin Harris.

Shirley Harrison is an author who quoted partially from those notes. So perhaps you will understand - or perhaps not - why I thought you considered it disgraceful for any author not to "quote every word of every source document or refrain from quoting anything at all". How are you distinguishing between what you say requires full disclosure and what doesn't? Mike's notes were not 'being withheld', in the sense of being kept away from the public because of what they would reveal -
quite the contrary in fact, as anyone who has now studied them must surely appreciate.

Furthermore, we are talking about a situation where I directly requested James Johnston to release the full transcript of his interviews from which he had selectively quoted. Yet he point blank refused (giving a feeble excuse for doing so). It's just not good enough. Does Johnston have an obligation to release those transcripts in full? Yes, he obviously does.

Because, as with the research notes, you want them put in the public domain, and you want them yesterday? How do we know you won't come back tonight and directly request someone release the full transcripts of every diary or watch related interview ever quoted from, and declare it disgraceful that they haven't all already been made public?

Love,

Caz
X