Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you (I'm constantly amazed your missus frequents it as she does).

    Save your soul now before it's too late. You'll never win an argument, nor lose one. It's completely pointless trying!

    And I should know.

    Ike
    Deeply Concerned That You're Making A Terrible Mistake
    Mind you, you asked for one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the Diary.....and you got one! So your experience of this forum hasn't been all bad.

    Comment


    • Hi Keith. I didn't think post #649 required a response--so I apologize. It refers to Mike telling Martin Howells (and Doreen Montgomery?) that he was given the contact information for Crew Literary Agency from Pan Books. This could well be--it has a certain ring of truth---but does not resolve *when* Mike received that information. What an enormous difference there would be to your preferred provenance had it occurred the same day--Monday, March 9th--compared to if it had been the previous Friday--March 6th. It seems unlikely that we will ever know, so I concede the point. Who would have thought to record such an apparently insignificant detail?

      Mike's ownership of "several titles" by Pan Books is interesting. He told a similar story to Alan Gray, but even named a specific title:

      The Dead of Jericho by Colin Dexter (Pan Books, London 1982).

      This piece of trivia stayed with me for three reasons. First, I'm a fan of Inspector Morse and his love of 'real' ales. Who wouldn't be? Second, it left me wondering if Anne might have been something of a mystery buff. Third, Barrett brought it up because Dexter liked to throw in an odd literary quote now and again at the beginning of his chapter headings, and Barrett claimed he would sometimes make use of these quotes. I don't remember all of it anymore, but I think it was an example of the sort of thing that led him to allegedly take up the quote "O Costly Intercourse" from the Sphere Guide.

      Another publication by Pan:

      The Identity of Jack the Ripper by Donald McCormick (Pan Books, 1962).

      Alas, I have no proof that Barrett owned this book. Did you happen to see it on the shelf? Could it have been among the 'several' books he owned from Pan? Good luck with your football games. Cheers, RP

      P.S. to Sam Flynn. Interesting comment. It seems to me that the diary author may have confused the Chapman and Eddowes crime scenes in so far as he assumed that the Ripper had also picked over Eddowes' belongings, Hanbury Street-style, hence 'tin match box empty.'

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        Perhaps he closed the box and, finding it empty, carefully put it back in her pocket along with her other possessions
        Yes, after documenting his discoveries in catalogic shorthand, of course.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you
          On the contrary, serious players are very welcome.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Observer View Post
            I have always been of the opinion that it's possible that Mike Barrett was accurate in his dating for the acquisition of the photo album/diary, that is, late January 1990. I believe the idea for the hoax took shape on the 100th anniversary of the ripper murders in 1988, and the subsequent 100th anniversary of the Maybrick murder in 1889. It's possible the finished article was completed by January 1990, and Mike Barrett went ahead and bought the photo album/diary in an attempt to use it to perpetrate the hoax. I believe Barrett decided that the photo album/diary was not fit for purpose, and decided against using it. It's possible he abandoned the venture, but in March 1992 decided to give it another go, and so he bought the red leather Victorian diary. Finding that this diary was too small for purpose, he again turned to the original photo album/diary he had bought in 1990, and decide to use that. The rest is history.

            Just to add, by the time he had paid for the second diary, he had forked out £75 for the two diaries. Not wanting to throw more money away by purchasing a third diary, and realising it could be quite some time before he could source a suitable diary, if it was at all possible, he decided to use the original photo album/diary.
            Hi Observer,

            I must say, this scenario does appear to me to be somewhat less problematic than the one David Orsam favours, although neither strikes me as a likely, never mind satisfactory solution to the mystery of why Mike was enquiring about diaries from 1880-1890 at around the same time that floorboards were lifted in Maybrick's old bedroom and he was sounding out a literary agent about a diary supposedly already in his possession.

            I just don't like the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of Mike researching the ripper or the Maybricks prior to that day. If one allows for him doing none of the research, composing none of the text and someone else doing the handwriting, what would link him beyond all reasonable doubt to its creation?

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 01-30-2018, 08:25 AM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              If one allows for him doing none of the research, composing none of the text and someone else doing the handwriting, what would link him beyond all reasonable doubt to its creation?
              His marriage vows?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                Those questions about the tin are damned important. No deflection. No squirming. A Late Victorian biscuit tin would be worth money...so I want to know every detail about it and it's existence or not. And if it is just..as you say..'heresay' evidence...
                Hearsay evidence, Phil. That's what I said and I explained why it had to be hearsay. But since your beef is with a 'pro-diary' person on another site entirely, for mentioning this tin [while being unable to describe it for the reasons I gave you] then I suggest you take it up with that person, who doesn't appear to post here on this site.

                ...what the blazes is a pro-diarist doing pushing and promoting the story in the first place?
                No idea. As I say, if you actually want an answer, I suggest you ask the person concerned.

                The sad thing is that people are selective when letting things get through the net.
                Indeed, but that applies to modern hoax theorists as well as anyone else.

                And the twelfth question. .why no mention of a lid in the story of this b..dy tin? Not even that the lid was missing! Nobody asked when investigating the story. .which tells me something very obvious. The details were ignored when this hoax was invented.
                You still don't get it, do you, Phil?

                Nobody is claiming to have found a tin, and nobody is claiming to have seen a tin. As far as I know, one person claimed to have been told by another person about a tin, and related this to others. But without any support for its existence, from someone claiming to have actually seen it, I'm struggling to see how you can expect anyone to comment on whether it may have sported a lid or not!

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • I can't help wondering if the statement that there is not a shred of evidence of Mike researching the Ripper or the Maybricks prior 9 March 1992 has any meaning at all. Unless there has been a proper investigation into whether Mike carried out any private research on his own, it's surely meaningless to say there is no evidence of him doing such research isn't it? Is there any evidence that he did NOT carry out such research?

                  As we know, Mike destroyed all his contemporaneous handwritten notes of the research on which his so-called "research notes" were derived, so what is our knowledge of his research (or non-research) based on?

                  I'm fairly sure there is no independent evidence available to researchers that I've ever been in a library in my life. Does that mean I've never been in a library? Of course not.

                  Comment


                  • Evening all, just passing this on from KS

                    To David O.


                    David. Doesn’t the evidence of Mike Barrett researching JTR and the Maybricks, prior to March 9th 1992, come from his own sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995? My reading of this document is that before January or February 1990, Mike had already undertaken considerable research into both areas...


                    “We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter.”


                    The “August 1991” date on the front page of his “research notes” supports this statement.


                    Best Wishes, Keith
                    Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post


                      David. Doesn’t the evidence of Mike Barrett researching JTR and the Maybricks, prior to March 9th 1992, come from his own sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995? My reading of this document is that before January or February 1990, Mike had already undertaken considerable research into both areas...


                      “We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter.”


                      The “August 1991” date on the front page of his “research notes” supports this statement.
                      Well sure Keith, that's what he claimed, but I've been told repeatedly that we can't rely on a single word he says, and in that respect I'm happy to accept, as a matter of fact, the statement that there is "not a shred of evidence", i.e. corroborating evidence, that he undertook any research prior to 9 March 1992. But I'm very pleased you have responded because I'm sure that if the issue had ever been properly investigated you would have known about it and told us.

                      That being so, I'm driven to the conclusion that it is indeed totally meaningless (even if factually correct) to assert that there is "not a shred of evidence" that Mike did any earlier research. If he had done any, we simply wouldn't know about it and there's hardly any way we could possibly know about it. It's a bit like saying there's not a shred of evidence he ever went to the lavatory. We can't actually confirm one way or the other.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                        Evening all, just passing this on from KS

                        To David O.


                        David. Doesn’t the evidence of Mike Barrett researching JTR and the Maybricks, prior to March 9th 1992, come from his own sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995? My reading of this document is that before January or February 1990, Mike had already undertaken considerable research into both areas...


                        “We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter.”


                        The “August 1991” date on the front page of his “research notes” supports this statement.


                        Best Wishes, Keith
                        well he was obviously lying! ; )
                        "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

                        Comment


                        • This is all starting to remind me of the weird cognitive dissonance you see in the politicians whenever a Muslim, alone or in concert with other Muslims, decides to murder non-Muslims in the name of Allah, records a YouTube video explaining his theological reasoning, and commits mass murder-suicide while shouting 'Allah is greater!' - only for those great Islamic scholars David Cameron or Angela Merkel to pop up on the news to announce that the act had 'nothing to do with Islam'.

                          Regular people know they are being told the most preposterous lie. But it happens every time. Hence the great satirical headline, "British Muslims fear backlash after next week's terror attack."

                          There's no evidence to prove that the writer and Victorian diary-acquirer who gave a signed affidavit stating that prior to announcing to the world that he was in possession of the Diary of Jack the Ripper he had extensively researched Maybrick and Jack the Ripper, actually did what he openly admitted he had done.

                          I hear the terrible grinding of gears, gears that won't mesh, the smell of hot metal and burning.

                          And the same people laughed when I said that LFC had been beaten by a very fine Swansea outfit..... Now they begin to see....

                          Comment


                          • From KS


                            TO ABBY NORMAL


                            But where is the proof Mike was lying Abby?

                            What was he lying about?

                            Why would Mike go into a Solicitor’s Office to make a sworn affidavit, presumably on oath - and lie?

                            Do you know how this all works Abbey? I’ve never made a sworn affidavit but if I wanted to put on record that David had told me he was a life long supporter of Chelsea, do I just phone up a Solicitor, make an appointment, go along and see him/her, swear the affidavit, have it witnessed, pay the fee, take away a copy of the affidavit and distribute copies at Stamford Bridge? And that’s it. I’m not required to provide any evidential support for my affidavit? The fact I have sworn it in a Solicitor’s Office is proof enough of my veracity?

                            Best Wishes, Keith
                            Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                              From KS


                              TO ABBY NORMAL


                              But where is the proof Mike was lying Abby?

                              What was he lying about?

                              Why would Mike go into a Solicitor’s Office to make a sworn affidavit, presumably on oath - and lie?

                              Do you know how this all works Abbey? I’ve never made a sworn affidavit but if I wanted to put on record that David had told me he was a life long supporter of Chelsea, do I just phone up a Solicitor, make an appointment, go along and see him/her, swear the affidavit, have it witnessed, pay the fee, take away a copy of the affidavit and distribute copies at Stamford Bridge? And that’s it. I’m not required to provide any evidential support for my affidavit? The fact I have sworn it in a Solicitor’s Office is proof enough of my veracity?

                              Best Wishes, Keith
                              Hi mr skinner
                              I guess you didn’t see my winky thing to indicate I was being sarcastic.
                              The diary defenders, or at least those who don’t believe Barrett was capable of being involved, just say he lied in his affidavit.

                              Personally to me his sworn confession of hoaxing it should have put the lid on this farce along time ago.

                              Could you pleas explain why you still believe it’s an open question? What will it take to convince you that it’s a modern forgery and or it was written partially by Barrett?
                              Why haven’t you denounced this as a modern hoax?

                              Also, why is it taking so long for you to get on here?

                              I apologize for my bluntness.
                              "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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                                His marriage vows?
                                Hilarious, Henry. Somebody buy this chap a pint!

                                Keith - As you know, after Tony Devereux's death in 1991, when Tony's daughters were cleaning out his effects, they found Mike Barrett's personal copy of Liverpool Tales by Richard Whittington-Egan. Is that your understanding?

                                The book contains a short section about the Maybrick case, and this, of course, would date to a time before March 1992. Since a hoaxer would obviously try to hide his knowledge, doesn't the mere fact that Barrett's book turned up in a locaton where he could not retrieve it or conceal it --the Devereux home -- speak rather loudly about his reading habits prior to March '92? Or is this another weird coincidence from which no meaning can be gleaned?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X