Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Still waiting for mine. I hope the post(e) man delivers it soon
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
      Great work, Robert.

      Have just finished reading my copy, issue 18 of 500
      So, anything worth noting? Or more of the same?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
        So, anything worth noting? Or more of the same?
        No spoilers, please!
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          No spoilers, please!



          James Maybrick definitely did it!!


          sorry, slipped out...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
            James Maybrick definitely did it!!
            Lalalalalala! Not listening!

            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Can I ask this question of the ether:

              Did Anne Barrett actually say in 1992 that she knew nothing about the Diary except what Mike told her?

              If so, can someone provide me with the exact quote of her saying this?

              The authors of Inside Story appear to have omitted inclusion of such a quote in their 2003 book and I can find nothing in either of Shirley Harrison's two books, nor in Feldman, that Anne Barrett said any such thing in 1992.

              Comment


              • I already set out in some detail (in #536) the entire background to an exchange I had on this forum in November 2016, in the "Incontrovertible" thread, about Keith Skinner's views on the Battlecrease provenance and I even provided all the post reference numbers. But I suppose some people are too lazy to even bother to check them and are prepared to rely on their faulty memory to make a false point against me in this thread.

                So let me once again, hopefully for the very last time ever, set out the facts.

                The simple question (in two parts) I asked on 29 November 2016 was:

                "Has Keith Skinner ever put anything in writing which states that he finds compelling the evidence (whatever that may be) that the diary has a Battlecrease provenance?

                If not, what has he actually said that makes you think he finds that evidence compelling?"


                Here were the ONLY responses I received to that question:

                RESPONSE 1 – 30 November 2016


                "Keith spoke publicly about this in 2007 in Liverpool in response to a question - or observation - from Jeremy Beadle. I expect someone recorded it at the time, but I don't have that information. He did make it obvious to the entire audience on that occasion that he finds the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling."

                RESPONSE 2A - 1 December 2016


                "What Keith said was that if the documents in his possession were put before a jury (and he clarified later that he meant this in the same context as the event where he made the statement - the 2007 Trial of James Maybrick in Liverpool - a court of history, not of law) he believed the verdict would be that the diary came out of Battlecrease House.

                You may interpret that how you wish. Fill your boots."


                RESPONSE 2B - 1 December 2016

                "Well now, just how am I meant to convince you that he does indeed still hold this view? He doesn't post on the boards and if he asked me to post a message to that effect on his behalf, how could I convince you I hadn't made it up, just for jolly?

                Once again, I don't expect anyone to accept what Keith or I have said at face value, but I would find it deliciously ironic if you were more open to the possibility of Mike's various 'confession' statements reflecting the truth, or partial truth, without having seen a jot of evidence for it, than you are to Keith Skinner holding a very different position that is backed up to the hilt. Demand evidence by all means before you take anything said about Keith's long and painstaking research seriously, but where are your demands to see evidence for any of Mike's claims? Your demands have been for evidence that he lied, which does suggest a predisposition to favour Mike's claims over Keith's. If I'm getting the wrong impression I'm sure you'll put me straight."


                That was it. There was nothing more said.

                So at no time in response to my question was the simple explanation given to me that Keith Skinner had recently confirmed that he found the Battlecrease provenance compelling. That was the information I was seeking but it wasn't provided.

                All that was mentioned was what Keith said in 2007.

                This is why I said on 1 December: "I am unconvinced that Keith Skinner holds this opinion today". As we now all know, I had been in email conversation with Keith Skinner about the Diary for two or three months prior to November and his emails had (unintentionally) led me to believe he did not think the Diary came from Battlecrease.

                Keith Skinner then emailed me on 4 December 2016, as I have already said in my earlier post, to confirm that he did indeed still find the Battlecrease provenance compelling. He also emailed a certain person at the same time to inform that person of his email to me. Two days later, on 6 December, a gloating and condescending post appeared on the forum as follows:

                "Whatever you may have assumed yourself, why would I need, or indeed want, to post less than professional 'assumptions' about Keith's thinking? We are co-authors of Ripper Diary, so if I hadn't already known for certain what his current thinking was, I'd have asked him before commenting on it publicly. I trust we can now put this behind us and move on?"

                Even this strangely worded post did not expressly state that Keith had recently stated anything about the provenance, or that the poster was always kept abreast of Keith's current thinking or that anyone was 100% certain of anything. So anyone who tells you that this was said to me on the forum is either lying or hopelessly confused.

                Comment


                • I still haven't seen an image of the "invoice" for Mike's 1986 purchase of the Word Processor. How easy would it be just to have it posted as an attachment to a post on this forum? Very easy I think but perhaps there is some complicating factor of which I'm unaware.

                  Comment


                  • I don't expect there to be any further revelations on the "Battlecrease provenance" other than that several people seem to find it to be convincing merely because they choose to do so.

                    All of this dancing around the point and no actual clear indication about why.

                    The chances of that diary having came from the 19th century are slim, the chances of it having come from beneath the floorboards of Maybrick's bedroom are slimmer, imho.

                    If there's any actual evidence to suggest that I'm wrong, then I'd love to see it, and to see it without having to buy the book.

                    I honestly don't think that there's any concrete evidence to suggest any kind of actual provenance with Maybrick's house at all, other than that a few electricians claimed to have found it there, which is frankly hilarious if being touted as evidence.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                      I don't expect there to be any further revelations on the "Battlecrease provenance" other than that several people seem to find it to be convincing merely because they choose to do so.

                      All of this dancing around the point and no actual clear indication about why.

                      The chances of that diary having came from the 19th century are slim, the chances of it having come from beneath the floorboards of Maybrick's bedroom are slimmer, imho.

                      If there's any actual evidence to suggest that I'm wrong, then I'd love to see it, and to see it without having to buy the book.

                      I honestly don't think that there's any concrete evidence to suggest any kind of actual provenance with Maybrick's house at all, other than that a few electricians claimed to have found it there, which is frankly hilarious if being touted as evidence.
                      I have no intention of buying the book in question, in my opinion it would be a complete waste of money. One thing which has always interested me though, providing it has any foundation in truth, is Paul Feldman's account in his book, in which he stated that the electricians in question took the Diary to Liverpool University. Feldman said that he contacted Liverpool University, they did confirm that the two electricians had visited them but they would not confirm that they had examined a Diary, Journal, or anything similar. They would not tell Feldman what they examined in fact. Perhaps this new book can shed some new light on the above. I doubt it though. If I was attempting to shed some light on the origin of the Diary, this is where I would be looking.

                      One other thing, again, from Feldman's book, the Diary upon being found was apparently thrown from the window of the house, and then thrown into a skip. It would be interesting to see if there were any damage sustained to the Diary as a result of this rough treatment.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                        I have no intention of buying the book in question, in my opinion it would be a complete waste of money. One thing which has always interested me though, providing it has any foundation in truth, is Paul Feldman's account in his book, in which he stated that the electricians in question took the Diary to Liverpool University. Feldman said that he contacted Liverpool University, they did confirm that the two electricians had visited them but they would not confirm that they had examined a Diary, Journal, or anything similar. They would not tell Feldman what they examined in fact. Perhaps this new book can shed some new light on the above. I doubt it though. If I was attempting to shed some light on the origin of the Diary, this is where I would be looking.

                        One other thing, again, from Feldman's book, the Diary upon being found was apparently thrown from the window of the house, and then thrown into a skip. It would be interesting to see if there were any damage sustained to the Diary as a result of this rough treatment.
                        I find it odd that they'd find something that they were considering to be as even somewhat important and yet throw it into a skip from a high window, lol. Not the brightest bunch, then!

                        I'd like to know which university building they took it to, and who they supposedly spoke with about it.

                        Seems odd that the university wouldn't give out any information, as it's hardly a top-secret case.

                        So much of it just doesn't gel well with me, tbh.

                        Comment


                        • Nor does it gel well with me to be honest. The incident which I describe does come from Paul Feldman's book after all. I find it a bit odd that the Diary after being consigned to the skip, was fished out, and suddenly low and behold it's worthy of a visit to Liverpool University. And yes, why the hush hush attitude of the University? No, it does note bode well

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                            Nor does it gel well with me to be honest. The incident which I describe does come from Paul Feldman's book after all. I find it a bit odd that the Diary after being consigned to the skip, was fished out, and suddenly low and behold it's worthy of a visit to Liverpool University. And yes, why the hush hush attitude of the University? No, it does note bode well
                            What I find funny is the scenario that this is a 19th century fraud, which just so happened to mirror text from a few books that weren't published til the following century.

                            From the "tin-matchbox empty" to the material in Whittington-Egan's books, to the use of "one-off instance", to the blunder about the then non-existent Poste House... It's all rather coincidental.

                            To me, the more likely and obvious scenario is the one we already have from Barrett. That's not to say he's speaking 100% truth, because there's just so much untruth to the entire saga that I doubt if anyone involved is free from yarn-spinning, but the idea that it's at least a modern hoax is more fitting with what we know.

                            If it's true that Barrett obtained a Victorian diary from an auction, then I'd say that to suggest that that had nothing to do with the diary is probably quite ridiculous.

                            What I'm expecting is a lot of conjecture that keeps the deniers denying and the believers believing, and not much else in between.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                              From the "tin-matchbox empty" to the material in Whittington-Egan's books, to the use of "one-off instance", to the blunder about the then non-existent Poste House... It's all rather coincidental.
                              You seem to be quite hung up about the 'Poste House blunder', despite the fact that the Diary doesn't actually claim that said establishment is in Liverpool.

                              Comment


                              • I agree entirely JG.

                                It has always amazed me the way in which both the believers that Maybrick was JTR, and those who believe it to be an old hoax, refuse to accept the obvious.

                                Here in Mike Barrett we have a man who described himself as an author. A man who with not a lot of money at his disposal bought a word processor. How many out of work Liverpudlians in Mike''s circumstances could say that? He then attempts to buy a Victorian diary, with a minimum of twenty pages, and then turns up with a photo album, with a number of pages cut out of it, in which is written the thoughts of James Maybrick, also known as JTR.

                                In the Diary, as you point out, are phrases which were not in existence in the late Victorian period.

                                I think Henry Flower put it succinctly when he said the language used in the Diary smacks of a late 20th Century ex scrap metal dealer trying to impersonate a late Victorian upper middle-class cotton merchant. I don't think I need to say more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X