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

[David Orsam]

David doesn't want the truth.

That is a false and highly objectionable statement. Unless you can provide some evidence to support it I expect a full apology.

If these notes would have helped why didn't Mike himself hand them in with his confession?

You've clearly misunderstood the point. We are now being told that the Dairy came out of Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. If the research notes are dated, for example "February", even without a day or year, this can only mean that either the Diary did not come out of Battlecrease on 9 March or that the research notes were faked.

And there could be plenty of other reasons. It's just ridiculous to ask "what's so important about seeing the originals of these notes?".

Plus why didn't Shirley ask to see them if they existed in the summer of 1992? Or did she? You might have noticed the suggestion made in this thread that Mike and/or Anne destroyed them. So that might explain why Mike didn't "hand them in" at any time.

[caz]

It has to be considered as somewhat alarming that Shirley Harrison was making categoric statements about the date of creation of Mike Barrett's research notes if she didn't actually know when they were created.

I completely fail to understand...

Yes you do, don't you?

I imagine Mike began researching the diary in mid-March and continued to make notes until Anne typed them up along with Shirley's input. He didn't know the diary existed before March 9th, but Shirley didn't know that and he didn't tell her.

Shirley would have imagined the bulk of Mike's research took place in the wake of getting the diary from Devereux the previous year and she would have been relying on what Mike and Anne told her.

Was she making it up that these notes were created before Mike came to London? Or was she repeating what she had been told by Mike and Anne? If so, were Mike and Anne lying to her?

What do you think? If Devereux never saw the diary I suspect Shirley was the one being lied to, don't you? But then again, if you think Shirley made up her 'one-off' information...

And the puzzles continue.

For you maybe. For most people there's nothing to see here and they will move on.

If there was a typed transcript produced of Mike's original research notes why didn't Shirley quote from that transcript in her 2003 book? Why quote from the version of these notes that had been "re-typed and 'tidied-up'"? It doesn't make any sense.

No, you are not making any sense. The typed transcript is the version that tidied up Mike's notes.

And note the word "re-typed". I assume this is deliberate. Which apparently means that there was a previously typed version of the notes. But what about the handwritten notes. Where are they? Were they typed up by Mike and then re-typed by Anne? And then tidied up by Anne? And then did Shirley put in her information and input?

What does it matter if Mike made notes in the library by hand, which he may or may not have typed up himself, and which were finally tidied and typed up by Anne as a single A4 document with Shirley's input and handed to her in the July or August? There is no suggestion that Shirley saw anything but the final version or thought she would ever need to do so.

What is needed is Mike's original handwritten notes...

Good luck with that one.

The idea that there would be no reason to keep them once typed up is utterly laughable.

There would be no reason for Mike or Anne to think the rough notes would be needed once typed up if they had nothing to hide. And it would be utterly laughable to think they would keep them if they contained evidence that they had created the diary themselves. So again, good luck with that one.

It's like saying no-one ever needed to see the original of the Diary now that it's all been typed up and published. And here we are with a book about to be published containing a new reproduction of it!

And do you think it would be utterly laughable if Robert and his proof readers don't keep all the draft chapters and notes made during the preparation of his new book in case someone like you insists they are needed?

The point is that if Mike was involved in forging the Diary, these research notes are all fakes.

No **** Sherlock.

And if Mike wasn't involved, his original research notes are no more fake than the final typed up version of them and would have been of no use to man nor beast and no business of yours.

How hard can it be for anyone to understand how important the original manuscript research notes are in that context?

And you seriously think they would have survived in that case either?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wonder if anyone who has a brain (which they use) can see me poking fun at anyone in the above?

What I see is myself quite properly correcting what I thought was an error by the original poster.

It wasn't an error by the original poster it was an error by me because I had transcribed the quote incorrectly. A very minor error that I have never disputed and have even now apologised for!

I guess some people who try to make an issue out of such a minor slip have absolutely no class.

And THAT was classy?

[David Orsam]

Now let's look again at what Shirley says:

"Mike had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne".

What does "re-typed" mean in English?

It means typed again.

It's different from "typed up" which would indicated the first typing of some manuscript notes.

So what Shirley was saying (although she may of course have been confused) was that Anne had typed some notes that had already already typed up.

So what has happened to the original typed up version of the manuscript notes? Why did these notes need to be "re-typed"?

Perhaps Shirley didn't mean to use the word "re-typed" but that's what she says.

If the full version of the "re-typed" notes was actually produced and published that might at least get us somewhere but as I said some days ago it is very frustrating that this has not happened.

[caz]

You've clearly misunderstood the point. We are now being told that the Dairy came out of Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. If the research notes are dated, for example "February", even without a day or year, this can only mean that either the Diary did not come out of Battlecrease on 9 March or that the research notes were faked.

Or Mike had to lie about when he began his research because he couldn't admit the "Dairy" came out of Battlecrease on 9th March 1992 and said he got it from Devereux the previous summer.

Why do you keep ignoring the bleedin' obvious?

It's just ridiculous to ask "what's so important about seeing the originals of these notes?".

That's not what I was asking. I was asking what good it does to cry about spilt milk [in your Dairy]. If they were faked and contained evidence of being faked they would hardly have survived. Ditto if they were not faked but merely superseded by a neater, more coherent version of the same notes.

Plus why didn't Shirley ask to see them if they existed in the summer of 1992? Or did she? You might have noticed the suggestion made in this thread that Mike and/or Anne destroyed them. So that might explain why Mike didn't "hand them in" at any time.

What makes you think they still existed in the summer of 1992 when Shirley was handed the finished version? 'Destroyed' is rather strong. How about screwed up and put in the WPB once each note was faithfully transferred? I do that all the time when I'm proofreading for people. I make handwritten notes of the amendments but never keep them once I've applied them to the draft document and returned it. I wouldn't call it 'destroying' anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

It's just ridiculous to ask "what's so important about seeing the originals of these notes?".

This comment was, of course, addressed to Kaz in a post responding to a post by Kaz.

It's not difficult to work it out.

[caz]

So what Shirley was saying (although she may of course have been confused) was that Anne had typed some notes that had already already typed up.

So let's look at what the above means. Maybe David was confused.

Perhaps he didn't mean to use the word 'already' twice but that's what he says.

If the full version of the "re-typed" notes was actually produced and published that might at least get us somewhere but as I said some days ago it is very frustrating that this has not happened.

Very frustrating for David that he can't condemn something he knows so little about.

Oh go on, David. It doesn't usually stop you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This comment was, of course, addressed to Kaz in a post responding to a post by Kaz.

It's not difficult to work it out.

I knew that. I was talking about my own position. I should have emphasised the 'I' as in:

It may have been asked by others, but was not what I was asking.

[David Orsam]

Shirley puts forward Mike's research notes as being "the most effective demolition of the 'Great Forger' theory".

If those research notes were faked or manipulated in any way, i.e. they were dated "February" when they actually reflected research carried out in March, it wholly undermines Shirley's use of those notes as a demolition of the 'Great Forger' theory.

Because it means they could equally have been faked in their entirety whereby they were not genuine research notes to discover the author of the Diary at all but research notes originally made by Mike as preparation for a forgery, subsequently converted into typed notes which appeared to show him searching for the truth.

It really isn't bleedin' difficult to understand.

[David Orsam]

Now, for the children who are posting on the forum, and have issues with typos, let's look again at what Shirley says:

"Mike had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne".

What does "re-typed" mean in English?

It means typed again.

It's different from "typed up" which would indicated the first typing of some manuscript notes.

So what Shirley was saying (although she may of course have been confused) was that Anne had typed some notes that had already been typed up.

So what has happened to the original typed up version of the manuscript notes? Why did these notes need to be "re-typed"?

Perhaps Shirley didn't mean to use the word "re-typed" but that's what she says.

If the full version of the "re-typed" notes was actually produced and published that might at least get us somewhere but as I said some days ago it is very frustrating that this has not happened

[David Orsam]

It is, of course, very important to draw a distinction between putting a document in the bin and destroying a document.

Because the difference is.....er, the difference is.....well the difference is obvious, I mean, one is putting it in the bin and the other is destroying it.

A very important and significant distinction that needs to be made an a serious forum for adult posters.

[Kaz]

It is, of course, very important to draw a distinction between putting a document in the bin and destroying a document.

Because the difference is.....er, the difference is.....well the difference is obvious, I mean, one is putting it in the bin and the other is destroying it.

A very important and significant distinction that needs to be made an a serious forum for adult posters.

*crouches down and puts hard hat on...



(very different to daves tin foil version)

[David Orsam]

Given the unreliability of the source, I don't suppose anyone actually believes that I might think that Shirley Harrison made up her "one-off" information but some people clearly have problems with understanding and comprehension.

Here is what I posted on the "Incontrovertible" thread as recently as 8th June (#3371):

"I haven't said Harrison is being untruthful. I haven't said she has made anything up.

It's obvious she got into a terrible muddle with her notes and her memory. She was told something in 1993 by Dr Tony Deeson, who might have found something in Traynors' archives, but she never managed to verify it. In 2003 she seems to think she got the information directly from Traynors but probably forgot it was from Deeson. She never saw any document herself.

The end result is that we cannot rely on this supposed information."

[David Orsam]

I love how it's possible to think that Mike's original research notes were quite innocently thrown into the wastepaper basket, not appreciating their significance (even though someone was going to all the trouble of typing them up and/or re-typing them and tidying them up) yet, at the same time, to also think that those same research notes might have been fabricated to make them appear that they reflected research going back earlier than 9th March 1992 in order to corroborate the Devereux story. Yet it doesn't seem to occur that that might have been the very reason for their destruction!

And if they were destroyed to cover up a fabrication, could that fabrication have been that they were not genuine research notes at all but notes made to look like genuine research notes?

[David Orsam]

I must say, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the possibility that Mike's research notes were deliberately changed to make them appear that Mike had been researching for longer than he really had been.

So let's get this straight.

Mike receives the Diary on 9th March 1992 and, bang!, he is on it with the research at the library (perhaps just after ordering that Victorian diary with blank pages) so when he later meets Shirley in London he is able to present her with the results of this research which shows him innocently trying to find out if it was fake or genuine.

He's got a very good head start knowing that the Diary came from Battlecrease, the home of James Maybrick, and no doubt his research notes, when seen in full, must reflect that knowledge.

Oh no, but hold on, he couldn't have given THAT PART of his research notes to Shirley because that would have given away his knowledge of a fantastic provenance for the Diary. And that would never do. Much better to make up a fake cover story and say he got it from a dead man in a pub (because those daft Londoners will believe that).

Any notes showing a starting point that this was James Maybrick's Diary must have been quietly destroyed to demonstrate Mike's ignorance of where the document came from. They were then not included in the "re-typed" and "tidied up" version.

Got it? Right let's continue.

So he's done his research starting no earlier than March 1992 but when he is ready to give his research notes to Shirley it occurs to him that it would be rather difficult to explain why he was given the Diary to Tony Devereux some significant time before this but did not start doing any research until after his telephone call to Doreen.

So the incompetent and stupid Mike and the honest and upright Anne cook up between them a cunning and crafty little plan to destroy Mike's original notes, which reflected only a few weeks of research, to create a document showing a masterpiece of research conducted over many months.

My goodness, one could almost think the evil genius of a mind (or minds) behind such a clever scheme was capable of forging the Diary, not just the research notes!