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

[Purkis]

I want to make this perfectly clear, as David has brought it up and I think it very important to the subject, that I am NOT sexually frustrated, at least at this point in time, and any frustration that I have exhibited in this thread in no way, shape or form has any thing to do with sexual frustration, nor with the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction. Quite the opposite in fact-I am VERY sexually satisfied. In fact, I cant keep my wife's hands off me! Bless her heart.

I think this is a very important point that everyone involved in this thread needs to come clean where they stand on this issue, INCLUDING the "Diary Team". Also, It would be very helpful if everyone gives there specific reasons why they are or are not (please include graphic details).

Please also include whether you like the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction and if you think lead singer Mick Jagger really meant it, or was just kidding. (he must have just been being sarcastic right? I mean, a big rock star like that? He must have been getting more ass than a toilet seat, right??)

No harm was intended to anyone in this thread who actually is or is not sexually frustrated or to Mick Jagger and apologies to anyone who is offended by this post, including the "Diary Team".

I look forward to the responses and Happy Friday.

While I am frustrated that The Diary Team continue to keep secrets and whisper amongst themselves, I want it noted for the record that my frustration is NOT SEXUAL and never has been. I look forward to hearing The Diary Teams' take on this matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One point of mystery that sticks in my mind a little is how Maybrick, with declining health and spending a considerable amount of time bedridden and incapacitated, managed to get the diary under the floorboards without his wife, brothers or servants knowing? Lifting carpet, crowbarring up floorboards, nailing them back down etc?

[Observer]

One point of mystery that sticks in my mind a little is how Maybrick, with declining health and spending a considerable amount of time bedridden and incapacitated, managed to get the diary under the floorboards without his wife, brothers or servants knowing? Lifting carpet, crowbarring up floorboards, nailing them back down etc?

Or his brother Micheal for that matter

[Observer]

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.

How about Mike's ability to spin a yarn, and Anne's intelligence? Considering the content of the Diary, I'd say they were capable of producing it. Didn't he say that he had worked for the British Government's attempts to thwart the IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland?

[StevenOwl]

One point of mystery that sticks in my mind a little is how Maybrick, with declining health and spending a considerable amount of time bedridden and incapacitated, managed to get the diary under the floorboards without his wife, brothers or servants knowing? Lifting carpet, crowbarring up floorboards, nailing them back down etc?

Who claims he put it there, and what evidence is there that suggests he did? I must have missed that one...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't know that there was anyone else involved? I can't think of why anyone else would put it there? Anyone, on discovering the diary, who wished to use it against Maybrick or his family would have removed it from the house. Anyone wishing to protect Maybrick or his family would surely have destroyed it?
There may be other explanations but I can't really think of any at the moment.

[Abby Normal]

I didn't know that there was anyone else involved? I can't think of why anyone else would put it there? Anyone, on discovering the diary, who wished to use it against Maybrick or his family would have removed it from the house. Anyone wishing to protect Maybrick or his family would surely have destroyed it?
There may be other explanations but I can't really think of any at the moment.

I think it might be a house brownie, they're known to be very mischievous.

[Purkis]

One point of mystery that sticks in my mind a little is how Maybrick, with declining health and spending a considerable amount of time bedridden and incapacitated, managed to get the diary under the floorboards without his wife, brothers or servants knowing? Lifting carpet, crowbarring up floorboards, nailing them back down etc?

Maybe someone broke in while he was out buying fags or at the doctors and planted it under the floorboards (without his wife, brothers or servants knowing).

[David Orsam]

It occurs to me that when I said earlier in this thread, in reference to Dr Baxendale, that "the first document expert to examine the Diary said it's a fake and modern", some people might challenge this on the basis that the Diary had been examined by an expert prior to this.

For after all, did not Robert Anthony Hilton Smith, Assistant Keeper at the Department of Manuscripts at the British Library, not look at the Diary with his eyes? Did he not perceive the Diary? So did he not thereby visually examine the Diary?

Well no because he said, as recorded by Shirley Harrison, 'It looks authentic. But you'll have to take it to a document examiner.'

So he was saying that while it looked authentic, from merely looking at it (just like the Hitler Diaries no doubt looked authentic), he did not actually know if it was authentic or not and the Diary needed to be examined by a document examiner, of which he was not one.

For while he was undoubtedly an expert in reading, analysing, acquiring and collating old manuscripts, he was not an expert in examining them for authenticity.

In her 1993 book, Shirley Harrison mentions elderly manuscript historians who "peered" at the Diary through magnifying glasses but she does not mention any of them, including Smith, actually examining the Diary.

Regarding Smith's comment that it looked authentic, I note that Richard Whittington-Egan describes this verdict as "Not satisfactory. Not unsatisfactory, Indecisive.” and refers to Smith's "fence-sitting view."

Harrison also mentions a bookseller called Brian Lake who also looked at the diary and gave a verdict described by Whittington-Egan as "Inconclusive" but a bookseller who sells antiquarian books is hardly an expert in old manuscripts so his views don't count for anything anyway.

So when Harrison goes on to say that "The first step was to establish, as clearly as possible, that the diary was indeed Victorian and that the words had been written more than 100 years ago" she then goes on to say that "For this I turned to Dr David Baxendale".

Ooops, no she doesn't, she says: "For this I turned to Dr Nicholas Eastaugh" which was actually the second step but no need to confuse her readers with accuracy (even though she wasn't allowed to mention Baxendale's name one wonders if she needed to write the story in quite that way).

Anyway, she says: "Dr Eastaugh examined the journal at his studio in Teddington, south-west London." She doesn't say that he "forensically examined" the journal because frankly that would have been to state the bleedin' obvious.

[David Orsam]

Dr Baxendale, an experienced and well respected document examiner, found, from a simple solubility test, that the ink was freely soluble which it should not have been in the summer of 1992 for a Diary written in the nineteenth century.

Happily, though, we can ignore his expert view because he wasn't aware of the history of nigrosine even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with solubility and even though this, and any other of his findings in dispute, cannot have affected the result of his solubility test.

[caz]

I want to make this perfectly clear, as David has brought it up and I think it very important to the subject, that I am NOT sexually frustrated, at least at this point in time, and any frustration that I have exhibited in this thread in no way, shape or form has any thing to do with sexual frustration, nor with the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction. Quite the opposite in fact-I am VERY sexually satisfied. In fact, I cant keep my wife's hands off me! Bless her heart.

I think this is a very important point that everyone involved in this thread needs to come clean where they stand on this issue, INCLUDING the "Diary Team". Also, It would be very helpful if everyone gives there specific reasons why they are or are not (please include graphic details).

Please also include whether you like the Rolling Stones classic hit of 1965 (I Can't Get NO) Satisfaction and if you think lead singer Mick Jagger really meant it, or was just kidding. (he must have just been being sarcastic right? I mean, a big rock star like that? He must have been getting more ass than a toilet seat, right??)

No harm was intended to anyone in this thread who actually is or is not sexually frustrated or to Mick Jagger and apologies to anyone who is offended by this post, including the "Diary Team".

I look forward to the responses and Happy Friday.

Love it, Abby.

I'm glad you noticed it was David who brought up the subject of 'sexual' frustration on a diary thread.

I was shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

To what exactly does the "one" refer to in that sentence? Numerous ex husband's or expressions? Not quite clear.

c.d.

I worded that really badly, c.d. I meant it was one of the funny expressions my former mother-in-law used. I didn't mean it was my ex husband's mother-in-law as that would have been my Mum. And she thought even Les Dawson was too lewd for the telly. Sadly they both died on the same day so I now imagine her putting up with Les's mother-in-law jokes for eternity.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...the kind of frustration I am actually referring to is that of the researcher who is not allowed to see all the available documentation that might assist in forming a conclusion about a certain matter. I trust that clarifies the issue for anyone who might be in any doubt.

Not really, David. You imply here that your frustration is on account of not being 'allowed to see' Mike's research notes. Yet you say in a later post that you have no intention of contacting Keith Skinner about this, so surely you can see why it would be grossly unfair if you haven't even given him the chance to say yay or nay?

As it so happens, Keith emailed me only the other day to say he has read your recent posts here and has 'absolutely no objection' to you being sent the notes by me so you can put them up on the casebook 'for all to see and evaluate'. Keith agrees that the quickest and easiest way to set this in motion would be for me to pop a photocopy in the post to you, if you would kindly supply a contact address [via private message is fine - I shall look out for it]. As you keep saying how essential it is for everyone to see these notes in full, you are naturally the best - possibly the only person to be trusted with them. They run to seventeen A4 pages.

Keith also writes: 'In particular I would want to highlight that note on the front page about Transferring all my notes since August 1991 as it is one of the points I'm going to be bringing out at the Liverpool conference because it has to be weighed against the March 9th 1992 coincidence.' He describes this as 'the extraordinary coincidence of Mike deciding to telephone Doreen (using a false surname) on the day the floorboards were lifted in James Maybrick's bedroom.'

David, you will already know about this note on the front page from previous correspondence you had with Keith, although I assume you were respecting confidences, just as I have always done unless or until I get the go-ahead to share someone else's information publicly. We are not so very different, you and I, in that respect at least. Keith says it would be 'disappointing' if you thought the research notes were being deliberately suppressed. So it seems you could have asked him yourself, as I suggested ages ago [a week seems a long time in diary world], and cut out the middle woman entirely. He doesn't bite.

Here is Keith again:

'Reference could also be made to my taped interview with Mike Barrett in Liverpool Library on April 14th 1994 (pp.84-85) of Inside Story. I listened to it again the other day and reminded myself that I had only received the research notes on April 12th 1994. On the tape I specifically asked Mike whether, by any chance, he had kept his original notes and could he explain the background to his research and the word processor?'

[On checking my time line I can confirm that a receipt for a word processor purchased from Dixons and dated 3rd April 1986 was faxed to Keith from Shirley Harrison on 22nd February 1995.]

Keith writes:

'As I recall, it was purchased second hand with money given to Mike and Anne by Anne's father? Mike's story was that he made so many handwritten notes which were strewn all over the house much to Anne's annoyance when she came home from work and also that his handwriting was very bad. So it was decided to put everything on to a word processor – Anne showing Mike how to use it – but as his spelling wasn't good, Anne tidied this up. Mike said he threw all his handwritten notes away.'

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

It occurs to me that I might have unwittingly disappointed Keith Skinner…but then again Keith is a Chelsea fan so is very used to disappointment and will, I am sure, get over it.... just like he will, by now, have got over the cup final defeat, charity shield defeat, defeat to Burnley etc. etc.

[David Orsam]

Another thing that occurs to me is that if Keith received the research notes on 12th April 1994, which had been typed by Mike from his handwritten notes, with spellings only corrected, in a tidying up process, by Anne (who, thus, neither typed nor re-typed nor collated them), how did Shirley Harrison's information and input get into them?

I note that Shirley Harrison says in her 2003 book:

"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches."

Is Keith, I wonder, talking about the same set of notes that Shirley was given by Mike in 1992 or a different set which Shirley had created in the intervening two years?