25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Observer]

So who else is so ignorant that they think McCormick invented counting rhymes?

I can't quite believe some of the rubbish I'm reading here. Is there a joke I'm missing? I hate missing jokes.

Love,

Caz
X

In your original post you used the singular, "the counting rhyme". I thought you were referring to the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme. And no, I'm not that ignorant to believe in a million years that McCormick invented counting rhymes.

[Observer]

For your information it was almost certainly not Hunter who first suggested this. It has been doing the rounds for donkey's years, and it was probably Mel Harris who started it after swallowing Paul Feldman's suggestion that the diary author needed to have read the "Eight Little Whores" poem in order to include a funny little counting rhyme featuring "Sir Jim's" first three 'whore' murders.

Love,

Caz
X

Again, I was not suggesting that Hunter was the originator of the controversy surrounding the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme, merely the first one to mention it in this thread. I'm aware of the fact that it was being discussed here in 2004.

Regarding the "Eight Little Whores " poem, again, a very similar line in a counting rhyme appears in the Journal, namely

"One whore in heaven"

The following from the "Eight Little Whores" counting rhyme

"Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven"

The former in a Journal supposedly written by Jack The Ripper

The latter in a letter supposedly written by Jack The Ripper.

Both mention the death of Whores,both mention mention heaven, both are counting Rhymes.

Now if you want to stick your head in the sand, and believe that the two are not linked then that's up to you; but then you have no other option, you have this fixation that the author of the Journal is a contemporary of Jack The Ripper.

It's obvious to me that the author of the Journal read McCormicks's book, and prepared a little draft, and used just enough words, whores, die, heaven, the counting rhyme, which would suggest that he was the author of the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme.

And if the two are linked then that rules out a hoaxer who was a contemporary of Jack The Ripper. Unless of course he had access to the letter in which the "Eight Little Whores" rhyme appeared. That's if it existed at that time of course, which I don't believe it did.

And he didn't stop there, he also read Richard Whitington Egans book. In this book the false belief of the farthings found at the Chapman murder appeared. So we have again, in a funny little rhyme, the author of the Journal loves rhymes, "a farthing one and two".

And before you start, I know the farthings have been discussed at length also

[Iconoclast]

And he didn't stop there, he also read Richard Whitington Egans book. In this book the false belief of the farthings found at the Chapman murder appeared. So we have again, in a funny little rhyme, the author of the Journal loves rhymes, "a farthing one and two".

Such a blessed relief then that the journal makes no mention of farthings being at her feet.

Phew - had me going there for a moment!

[PaulB]

And he didn't stop there, he also read Richard Whitington Egans book. In this book the false belief of the farthings found at the Chapman murder appeared. So we have again, in a funny little rhyme, the author of the Journal loves rhymes, "a farthing one and two".

The Evening News on 8 September 1888 reported "In the dress of the dead woman two farthings were found, so brightly polished as to lead to the belief that they were intended to be passed as half sovereigns, and it is probable that they were given to her by the murderer as an inducement for her to accompany him.” Other newspapers reported the same.

As I recall, if the diary was a creation of the 1990s then its author would most probably have been sufficiently well-informed to have accepted the then common belief that the farthings were a fiction. And if he was reading McCormick and the hard-to-find Casebook by Whittington-Egan, then it's likely that he would have been fairly well-read and well-informed. It was further argued that someone well-informed about the Ripper probably wouldn't have referenced McCormick's "Eight Little Whores" either.

When Mike Barrett was first visited by Paul Feldman he was clearly anxious to secure his rights to the diary by claiming that he had read widely and had thus been able to identify Maybrick as the author, but it was obvious that his knowledge of Maybrick and the Ripper wasn't considerable at all. It was doubted that he had the knowledge, small as it might be, to write the diary. This was among the reasons which suggested that Mike was not the author of the diary.

[David Orsam]

As I recall, if the diary was a creation of the 1990s then its author would most probably have been sufficiently well-informed to have accepted the then common belief that the farthings were a fiction.

Everyone seems to ignore it but Melvin Harris has set out, very convincingly in my view, the sources the forger used in his article "The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide Through the Labyrinth". He identifies Peter Underwood's 1987 book "Jack the Ripper " as a key source. What does Underwood say about the farthings?

Harris tells us:

Und p9.. lists: "...two brass rings (presumably wrenched from the victims fingers) .. .a couple of farthings.. .two medicinal pills..."

[David Orsam]

When Mike Barrett was first visited by Paul Feldman he was clearly anxious to secure his rights to the diary by claiming that he had read widely and had thus been able to identify Maybrick as the author, but it was obvious that his knowledge of Maybrick and the Ripper wasn't considerable at all. It was doubted that he had the knowledge, small as it might be, to write the diary. This was among the reasons which suggested that Mike was not the author of the diary.

That's a bit strange because Shirley Harrison provides some evidence that Mike had gained quite an impressive knowledge of the Ripper case. She tells us that, in 1992, Mike gave her "all his notes" from when he researched the Diary which, curiously enough, had been re-typed and, in Harrison's words, "tidied up" by Anne. No idea why his original notes were not produced but anyway.... Harrison only gives one example of what appear to have been extensive research notes and these say:

"Check for copy of Punch around Sept. 1888...nothing to date...Where was Knowsley Buildings? To date cannot find...Question. Who else other than the Ripper would have known that he was almost caught? Answer: Not sure but if the Diary is genuine and written at that time these facts could only have been known by the Ripper".

It is very frustrating that this is the only snippet of his notes produced but they give a glimpse of someone who is methodically checking and researching the facts of the Ripper case and doing so, incidentally, before he brought the Diary to London on 13 April 1992.

Given that we are now being told that he was only handed the Diary on 9 March 1992 he must have done a lot of work in a short space of time - and the expression "nothing to date" in his notes can't refer to more than a few weeks at most.

Those notes don't seem to me to be the work of a mentally incompetent and incapable person but if it is said that they were significantly improved by Anne then that is the same person Mike said he wrote the text of the Diary with.

[Sam Flynn]

It would also be fair to consider that whoever wrote this particular diary wasn't being serious but intended it as a spoof or burlesque.

But at which point were there sufficient half-truths known about the Ripper (e.g. that he wrote letters with funny little rhymes), to the extent that such a spoof could have been written - in 1888/89? Doubtful. In 1988/89? Easily.

[PaulB]

That's a bit strange because Shirley Harrison provides some evidence that Mike had gained quite an impressive knowledge of the Ripper case. She tells us that, in 1992, Mike gave her "all his notes" from when he researched the Diary which, curiously enough, had been re-typed and, in Harrison's words, "tidied up" by Anne. No idea why his original notes were not produced but anyway.... Harrison only gives one example of what appear to have been extensive research notes and these say:

"Check for copy of Punch around Sept. 1888...nothing to date...Where was Knowsley Buildings? To date cannot find...Question. Who else other than the Ripper would have known that he was almost caught? Answer: Not sure but if the Diary is genuine and written at that time these facts could only have been known by the Ripper".

It is very frustrating that this is the only snippet of his notes produced but they give a glimpse of someone who is methodically checking and researching the facts of the Ripper case and doing so, incidentally, before he brought the Diary to London on 13 April 1992.

Given that we are now being told that he was only handed the Diary on 9 March 1992 he must have done a lot of work in a short space of time - and the expression "nothing to date" in his notes can't refer to more than a few weeks at most.

Those notes don't seem to me to be the work of a mentally incompetent and incapable person but if it is said that they were significantly improved by Anne then that is the same person Mike said he wrote the text of the Diary with.

I am stating the impression received from Mike's behaviour at the time he was visited by Paul Feldman when I don't think he impressed anyone with his knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick, but was anxious to demonstrate that he had undertaken research of his own.

I haven't had the opportunity to examine the notes he gave Shirley. Caz might be able to throw more light on them for you.

I don't think anyone who met Mike in those early days (and certainly not later) thought he had the necessary knowledge or capability to conceive of such a project and bring it to fruition, or keep it secret. Anne certainly had the intelligence and probably the ability.

[David Orsam]

I am stating the impression received from Mike's behaviour at the time he was visited by Paul Feldman when I don't think he impressed anyone with his knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick, but was anxious to demonstrate that he had undertaken research of his own.

I think the point Melvin Harris made was that the forger(s) of the diary did not have an impressive knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick but just took some factual snippets out of a small number of books while making the rest of it up.

So if Mike didn't have an impressive knowledge it's not inconsistent with him forging the Diary.

But, of course, bearing in mind that he must have carried out research into the Diary, as evidenced by his notes, it's inconceivable that he didn't read any books on Jack the Ripper. So whether the Diary is real or fake he simply must, at some point, have had some knowledge about JTR.

Unless, of course, the research notes are fake...but then if that's the case it raises the question of why fake research notes were created and who created them.

[David Orsam]

I don't think anyone who met Mike in those early days (and certainly not later) thought he had the necessary knowledge or capability to conceive of such a project and bring it to fruition, or keep it secret. Anne certainly had the intelligence and probably the ability.

I remain solidly unimpressed by these anecdotal impressions of Mike. I don't think anyone can really say what he was or was not capable of. People are capable of having hidden skills. Some people who are inarticulate in public can write very well, some who are amazingly articulate and eloquent can't write for toffee. Do we even know that he wasn't fooling everyone by creating the impression of being a shambles (a bit like Columbo!)?

If the Battlecrease story of this thread is true then a lot of people who met them have been fooled by the tale told by Billy Graham and his daughter haven't they?

And as for Mike not keeping a secret, did he mention to any of those people who met him "in the early days" that in March 1992 he had instructed an agent to acquire on his behalf a used or unused 19th century diary from the correct decade with a minimum of 20 blank pages? If not, then that's "a secret" he seems to have kept quite well.

[PaulB]

I remain solidly unimpressed by these anecdotal impressions of Mike. I don't think anyone can really say what he was or was not capable of. People are capable of having hidden skills. Some people who are inarticulate in public can write very well, some who are amazingly articulate and eloquent can't write for toffee. Do we even know that he wasn't fooling everyone by creating the impression of being a shambles (a bit like Columbo!)?

If the Battlecrease story of this thread is true then a lot of people who met them have been fooled by the tale told by Billy Graham and his daughter haven't they?

And as for Mike not keeping a secret, did he mention to any of those people who met him "in the early days" that in March 1992 he had instructed an agent to acquire on his behalf a used or unused 19th century diary from the correct decade with a minimum of 20 blank pages? If not, then that's "a secret" he seems to have kept quite well.

I don't think it matters whether you are impressed by these anecdotal impressions or not. They are important as a record of what people thought of Mike or whoever at given times. But I will spare you of any further and leave the thread to you.

[David Orsam]

I don't think it matters whether you are impressed by these anecdotal impressions or not. They are important as a record of what people thought of Mike or whoever at given times. But I will spare you of any further and leave the thread to you.

Well, equally, I could say that I don't think it matters whether you think it matters whether I am impressed by these anecdotal impressions or not.

It's an internet forum, Paul, and, as I think I am fully entitled, I have posted my own views in response to you describing to me "the impression received from Mike's behaviour" whereby, apparently speaking on behalf of others, you said you didn't think he impressed anyone with his knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick, which is a subjective opinion on any view. But, as I said, it's not clear that the author of the Diary had any great knowledge of those subjects.

Anyway, my views matter to me thank you very much Paul. I don't want the thread but am very happy to be spared any further from you, thanks.

[Kaz]

Well, equally, I could say that I don't think it matters whether you think it matters whether I am impressed by these anecdotal impressions or not.

It's an internet forum, Paul, and, as I think I am fully entitled, I have posted my own views in response to you describing to me "the impression received from Mike's behaviour" whereby, apparently speaking on behalf of others, you said you didn't think he impressed anyone with his knowledge of either the Ripper or Maybrick, which is a subjective opinion on any view. But, as I said, it's not clear that the author of the Diary had any great knowledge of those subjects.

Anyway, my views matter to me thank you very much Paul. I don't want the thread but am very happy to be spared any further from you, thanks.

Theres a poster on here. He met Mike on a few different occasions. Mike admitted to him he got the diary from the workmen... They met in the sadlers pub.

He said he'd ring me for a chat about the encounter. I never took him up on the offer but I can ask him to talk or phone you if you like?

[David Orsam]

Theres a poster on here. He met Mike on a few different occasions. Mike admitted to him he got the diary from the workmen... They met in the sadlers pub.

He said he'd ring me for a chat about the encounter. I never took him up on the offer but I can ask him to talk or phone you if you like?

You mean pinkmoon?

[Kaz]

You mean pinkmoon?

Yes.

Best I can do, sorry