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

[Mike J. G.]

Not my fault if you were too busy taking the piss to read what I actually told you. But it would certainly explain a lot. For starters it might explain why you think something is 'obscure knowledge', if you don't take in what's going on around you. I hope you perform better than this at the conference or you'll be coming back complaining that you weren't told anything.

And I hope Skinner isn't as hopelessly vague and evasive as you seem to be when you attempt to explain consistently inconsistent errors, Caz.

Next you'll be telling me that the Post Office in the Corn Exchange served ale on weekends.

[Mike J. G.]

Funny that, because I did tell you his name. I also described Robert Smith's similar experience with a different source at a different time.

Not my fault if you were too busy taking the piss to read what I actually told you. But it would certainly explain a lot. For starters it might explain why you think something is 'obscure knowledge', if you don't take in what's going on around you. I hope you perform better than this at the conference or you'll be coming back complaining that you weren't told anything.

Love,

Caz
X

Nope, you said you couldn't recall one bloke, and offered me the surname of one man, or some initials.

What's amazing, is that these two vague people for whom you claim to have no contact with, are the only two people in this city who can lay claim to knowing possibly the most obscure nickname for a pub ever.

The Post Office Tavern, apparently known by two random blokes as the "Poste House."

[caz]

I don't know, Caz, if you did it, I'd worry whether or not you could even reveal the details, as when you told me that dodgy story about knowing some random bloke from the Tavern in town who conveniently knew some obscure knowledge about it once being known as the Poste House, you couldn't tell me his name or give me any verifiable info about any of it. Funny, that.

Funny that, because I did tell you his name. I also described Robert Smith's similar experience with a different source at a different time.

Not my fault if you were too busy taking the piss to read what I actually told you. But it would certainly explain a lot. For starters it might explain why you think something is 'obscure knowledge', if you don't take in what's going on around you. I hope you perform better than this at the conference or you'll be coming back complaining that you weren't told anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Yeah, and I've only been saying the same thing myself for about a hundred years.

But no sense of humour, me. I wouldn't recognise a funny story if it bit me.

So we must both be wrong, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

I'm generally always correct, Caz, apart from when I'm wrong.

[caz]

No worries were had, Caz, we all had a laugh about it later, and still do to this day, see we have a sense of humour about things, unlike some folk! The guy who wrote that faux diary certainly had a good sense of humour.

Yeah, and I've only been saying the same thing myself for about a hundred years.

But no sense of humour, me. I wouldn't recognise a funny story if it bit me.

So we must both be wrong, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Am I? I don't think so, Mike.

It's not clear what you're saying, Caz, as you refrain from using specific names and details, which isn't surprising.

You are still going to the conference, I take it? Why not report back afterwards instead of assuming what I'm basically saying all the time?

It's a bit hard not to assume when you refrain from making your points clear, using specifics as opposed to vague details.

No I don't suppose he did for a minute, Mike.

So who did?

Your guess is as good as mine. No - make that better than mine. I'm sure you could ferret out that kind of information in no time.

Love,

Caz
X

So I'm correct in saying that you're merely inventing ways to allow for an inconsistent timeline? Why am I not surprised?

[caz]

You're basically saying that Rigby called someone, that someone called Barrett and told him about the diary?

Am I? I don't think so, Mike.

You are still going to the conference, I take it? Why not report back afterwards instead of assuming what I'm basically saying all the time?

Rigby certainly didn't go to any pub at lunchtime in Anfield, Caz, not from Aigburth.

No I don't suppose he did for a minute, Mike.

And when did they go to the University with the book?

Your guess is as good as mine. No - make that better than mine. I'm sure you could ferret out that kind of information in no time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

If the historian, Chris Jones, is the one I've mentioned on here previously, then I'm sure he'll have something to say regarding the dubious diary.

[Mike J. G.]

I'm not sure who the Diary Team are, but this is the list of speakers at the Marriott:

An Evening Hosted by Researcher
Robert Anderson, looking at the
Diary Mystery 25 years on, with an
expert Panel Discussion featuring:
Author Shirley Harrison,
The Black Museum Researcher Keith Skinner,
Student Researcher James Johnston
and Historian Chris Jones

http://www.crimeconference.com/shop/the-maybrick-diary-debate/

[Mike J. G.]

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about allowances being made for inconsistencies.

Is the scenario being posited by Caz the official version? Or are we just inventing ways for the timeline to make sense, like we're inventing ways for out-of-date phrases and pub names to be explained?

Imagine if this was how the police did their work? lol.

Well, this man may not have robbed that bank, he could've easily had his face transplanted like John Travolta and Nick Cage did in Face-Off!

[caz]

guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?

You'd have to ask Robert, Abby, and if you hadn't noticed he doesn't post on here and, even if he did, why would he just come on here and repeat word for word what's in his book? I don't know any more than you do about this 'diary team', although it presumably consists of people who do believe the diary is a genuine Victorian document and possibly even the 'real deal'. Is anyone fitting that description posting here currently? I have yet to catch up, but I don't personally know how old the diary is and I haven't 'defended' it here as genuinely Victorian, let alone the 'real deal' - despite what others may have tried to imply.

I just don't personally think it's modern enough to be a Barrett production, but everyone is free to have an opinion, including myself, and it's not as if I haven't tried to defend my own opinion over the years, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Why, Gareth?

X and Y use the same pub in Anfield.

X knows an old book has just been found beneath floorboards at 7 Riversdale Road, Aigburth, because two of his mates have been working there. He figures Y will be interested and might have a good idea what to do with it.

X goes to the pub that lunchtime, where Y is having a beer before picking up his daughter from school, has a word in his shell-like and a couple of phone calls later the charm is wound up.

How is that stretching credulity to breaking point, unless your preconception is that Y wrote the book himself?

But then, isn't it stretching credulity beyond breaking point to have Y creating the diary text at some point prior to March 1992, then finally making those same phone calls on 9 March with no knowledge that X's mates had been lifting the floorboards in James Maybrick's bedroom that very morning?

And if Y did have that knowledge, how did he acquire it, if not from X or his mates?

Love,

Caz
X

1) Who is supposed to have told X that a book had been found?

2) How does X know where to find Y?

Can you use names, rather than X and Y?

You're basically saying that Rigby called someone, that someone called Barrett and told him about the diary?

Rigby certainly didn't go to any pub at lunchtime in Anfield, Caz, not from Aigburth.

And when did they go to the University with the book?

It does stretch credulity when you have to make this account up just to fit, when so far as we know, this isn't how the account was described.

[caz]

It still stretches credulity to breaking point, Caz

Why, Gareth?

X and Y use the same pub in Anfield.

X knows an old book has just been found beneath floorboards at 7 Riversdale Road, Aigburth, because two of his mates have been working there. He figures Y will be interested and might have a good idea what to do with it.

X goes to the pub that lunchtime, where Y is having a beer before picking up his daughter from school, has a word in his shell-like and a couple of phone calls later the charm is wound up.

How is that stretching credulity to breaking point, unless your preconception is that Y wrote the book himself?

But then, isn't it stretching credulity beyond breaking point to have Y creating the diary text at some point prior to March 1992, then finally making those same phone calls on 9 March with no knowledge that X's mates had been lifting the floorboards in James Maybrick's bedroom that very morning?

And if Y did have that knowledge, how did he acquire it, if not from X or his mates?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

Something I found interesting was that Florence returned to Liverpool in 1927, attending the National, but this time in a rather less grand manner than she had in 1889.

This is a woman who died in a mere shack, filled with rubbish and cats, and buried quietly and without fanfare.

If she'd had any indication that her late husband was the Ripper, and that there'd been a diary containing a confession of such, it's a wonder why she "chose" to live out the rest of her days in near poverty, isn't it?

[Mike J. G.]

guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?

As you've said, Abby, I think what this book does is just speculate further, which is pretty much all there is in favour of it to begin with.

If there was anything concrete in terms of evidence for it being genuine, and without doubt, Maybrick being the Ripper, we'd have already heard it by now.

This conference coming up is entirely intended to sell the book and to further the speculation. If they had anything truly valid to offer, they'd be holding a press conference.

Expect more books to come.

Maybe they can write one on the history of the Post Office Tavern and how it got its obscure, unknown nickname that oddly and exactly matches another pub by that name not far away. I'd love to read that one.