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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didnt get an email from the company as they said that they would but I got an email from The Royal Mail yesterday saying that they had a parcel which was ready to deliver. It's nearly 2pm and no-show yet but it depends on the postage paid. Maybe tomorrow......or is it a hoax

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope. The parcel just arrived and it's not the book!

[Mike J. G.]

I just can't help but notice a flaw in the internal logic of that book summary.

On the one hand we are told that the question "When was it written?" will be finally answered.

We are also told that the diary team is "confident it is a genuine Victorian document".

Well if they've answered the question "When was it written?" they must know if it was a genuine Victorian document or not. Why are they only "confident" and not "certain"?

But if they HAVE answered the question and are confident that it is a genuine Victorian document then QED, unless they are holding paradoxical views, the diary must have been written before the death of Queen Victoria.

Then we are told:

"The diary is either a genuine document written circa 1888/89 or it is a modern fake. There is no other feasible option."

As they have already established that the document is Victorian then the answer must be that it was written circa 1888/89.

Given that they've established this, it must be regarded as a bit of a shame that the questions: "Was the diary written by a serial killer? If it was, was he Jack the Ripper?" don't receive definitive answers. So near yet so far, it seems.

Yeah, the fact that anyone can write something as obvious as: it's either real or it isn't, there's no other answer beyond that!

Well, erm...No ****, Sherlock.

Glad to see that the Maybrick case has now been made much more clear, in that we've gotten down to the bare bones of it either being real or fake...

[Mike J. G.]

"If it was a hoax, why hasn’t the proof of who forged it, and how and when, been forthcoming over the course of a quarter of a century?"

I don't find this question very helpful. The suggestion is that because no-one has been able to prove who forged the diary, and how and when they forged it, this is somehow a point in favour of the diary being genuine.

But, I mean, it's like saying that Jill Dando wasn't shot dead in 1999 because in 18 years no-one has been able to prove who murdered her and why. One can't always answer every question.

It's an often-floated line that intends to support all manner of nonsense.

We see it in many aspects of the supernatural, crime, mystery and all manner of hoaxes.

I always like to use the Bigfoot analogy, because it fits so well.

That often-floated line is always brought up in relation to the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film.

Well, if it's just a guy in a suit, how come nobody has proven it yet?!

People will reason with themselves about literally anything they wish, making any kind of definitive answer in a case such as this one quite hard to come by.

There's already enough red flags in the Maybrick case, yet people still want to play ball with it. It's like, yeah yeah, ignore that bit for a minute, what about this bit?!

That's how it goes, on and on. We can see it happening right now with that guy (H.H. Holmes' great great grandson) who'll be shot down regarding a certain line of evidence, and he'll just dust himself off and carry on regardless.

People will only see and hear what they wish to see and hear.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

Not that I think with 100% certainty that Mike wrote the diary, or had a hand in it, but I think those that rule it out completely are doing it ignorantly.

There's this notion that the writer must've been savvy, and full of wit and had an intelligence far beyond that of Barrett, which is frankly silly and baffling, imho.

Part of the reason the "Ripper" slipped through the cracks is because people had this preconceived image in their minds of what he was probably about, how he looked and acted. The average bloke was ruled out in favour of a more ghoulish and sly culprit.

Very average people are capable of extraordinary things, and we see it in hoaxes throughout history.

The man who is seen as being simple is the one with a greater chance of creating deception.

The fact that Mike read up on Maybrick and was in possession of at least one of Whittington-Egan's books (I'm inclined to believe he owned or had read Liverpool Soundings, too, where the info re: the 1889 National is included) shows that he wasn't your average 24-carat plonker. I have said before that I don't doubt Barrett owned enough books with which to glean the information needed to pen the diary, or to assist in it.

[Mike J. G.]

Grand National info could be found in just about any book published in the 20th century about the Grand National - they almost all contained a list of historical times of past races. With Mike Barrett being in Liverpool I doubt books on the Grand National were hard to find.

Feldman's claim that this information was so rare his research assistant only discovered it by a miracle is nonsense. She only had to pick up a decent book about the Grand National and she would have found it very easily.

If this has already come up since, then I apologize.

The relevant information re: the National, including a mention of James and Flo's heated argument and the winning horse are all included in Whittington-Egan's book, Liverpool Soundings, which also contains a chapter on Florence's life post-jail, back in the USA.

Liverpool Soundings was published in 1969, and is a great book which includes some of the chapters that were to be later republished in the paperback series of his work, including the one Barrett allegedly had in his possession, and which included more information on the Maybricks, Murder, Mystery and Mayhem.

[Mike J. G.]

Not quite sure I follow this one. Does anyone know if Mike was told on DAY ONE that the diary was from Battlecrease? Did any of those involved even know the name Battlecrease then, or that this used to be the name of the house the diary came from, or that this house belonged to James Maybrick in Jack the Ripper's time? Why would they have told Mike any of this anyway, if they just wanted to offload a bit of stolen property onto him for a small amount of dosh? He'd have been left to work it out for himself, just as he was left to work out what the diary was all about. Even when he must have suspected where it had really come from, he wasn't going to talk and lose any claim he otherwise had to a potentially priceless document.

The story of the Maybricks is well known in Liverpool, and was well known even before the Ripper nonsense came about, as I've mentioned in other threads. I'd be surprised if the people involved didn't know, especially since Whittington-Egan's series of books had brought renewed interest into the subject in the mid-to-late 80's and were readily available in most local bookshops.

[Mike J. G.]

The "hard to find" A Casebook On Jack The Ripper, was in my local Library in the early nineties, it is a standard book on Jack The Ripper, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that it was in Liverpool Central Library in the late eighties/early nineties. I'd also bet my bottom dollar that Whittington-Egan's book "Murder Mystery Mayhem" being a book devoted to murder mystery, and mayhem in the environs of Liverpool was in Liverpool Central at the time stipulated above. Whittington-Egan's book, of course, features the Maybrick murder. I'd say the two books sat next to each other on the shelves of the true crime section of the library, and I contend that Mike Barrett used both of these book to concoct the Diary in question.

Also, Liverpool Soundings, and all of those RWE books were widely available in Liverpool city center at various bookshops, and likely the local libraries, too.

I myself own all of them, and I also recall a lot of the stories from the Tales of Liverpool series actually being published as weekly episodes in the Liverpool Echo.

The Tales of Liverpool books still pop up today, as I saw Murder, Mystery and Mayhem in a lovely little bookshop on London road just a fortnight ago.

I'm unsure as to why people think Mike couldn't have came up with the idea. Frankly, I see published authors on this forum typing posts and I wonder how on earth they ever got into writing at all.

A person's writing/typing skills aren't a good enough indication of their intellect and possible skills.

I've mentioned it before, and I'll do it again, Roger Patterson was just a dumb old cowboy, he could never fool the world with a Bigfoot hoax, that costume was just too sophisticated for 1967.

[Kaz]

Anyone who ordered this . Received it yet?

Just now received!

[eddie1]

Me to thanks

[Henry Flower]

I'm unsure as to why people think Mike couldn't have came up with the idea. Frankly, I see published authors on this forum typing posts and I wonder how on earth they ever got into writing at all.

A person's writing/typing skills aren't a good enough indication of their intellect and possible skills.

I've mentioned it before, and I'll do it again, Roger Patterson was just a dumb old cowboy, he could never fool the world with a Bigfoot hoax, that costume was just too sophisticated for 1967.

Amen to that.

[caz]

I passed the Town Hall today. It has scaffolding up on the front. Not sure what's going on. First time I've seen work going on at the Town Hall and I've lived here around 23 years, and been coming here all my life (50 years) as my father's family come from the area.
If I can get to The Mods gig and see you I'll come up and say hello if you don't mind. I've seen you in pictures so I know what you look like!

Excellent, Ozzy! I hope you can make it. I'm a bit older than the last pics you'd have seen [not much wiser though], but you should still recognise me. I'll be with the handsome devil wearing some kind of mod outfit. We'll buy you a drink if you say hello.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Is anyone able to tell me how claims by Anne Barrett have been proved to be contradictory and unreliable?

And which claims have been so proved?

I wasn't aware of this amazing news.

Amazing news, David?

Didn't she claim in 1992 to know nothing about the diary except for what Mike told her about getting it from Tony Devereux?

And didn't she claim something else entirely in 1994?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So what evidence could anyone have presented to convince me that Keith Skinner's opinion in 2016 was the same as in 2007? It's a tough one.

Oh, hold on, they could have said that they had spoken to Keith Skinner recently and his opinion was the same. I wonder how difficult that would have been.

That would have answered my question rather than rambling on about what was said in 2007.

But despite impressions to the contrary this was NOT said on the forum until after Keith had emailed me in December.

Funny that, David, because I could have sworn I answered your question almost immediately I saw it, by telling you that as Keith's co-author on Ripper Diary, published in 2003, and as one of his partners-in-crime involved with the Battlecrease evidence ever since, I am always kept abreast of his current thinking on this through our frequent and regular email correspondence - which is precisely how I was able to tell you [but evidently still not reassure you, hence Keith's gallant gesture to rescue us both] that I was 100% certain his opinion had not changed since 2007.

I don't recall 'rambling on about' what was said in 2007 when I had no need to do that. You do know I've been working closely with Keith on the diary since about the beginning of this century, don't you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

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

2017 marks a quarter of a century since the document known as the diary of Jack the Ripper first came to the attention of the Ripper world.

This new book, by the diary's custodian and owner Robert Smith, has two main objectives: for the very first time to provide a same-size colour facsimile of the document, and to offer a record and an assessment of what has been discovered about the physical artefact and its contents since it emerged 25 years ago on 9th March 1992.

Purchase your copy now at
http://mangobooks.co.uk/book.php?b=25

Great work, Robert.

Have just finished reading my copy, issue 18 of 500