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

[Mike J. G.]

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.

And yet it's a massive coincidence that there was a Poste House in London, and a pub that was to be known as the Poste house in Liverpool in not too long a time?

Was there a Poste House pub in London? I've done a quick search and nothing comes up, but I'm open to the possibility, I just find it highly coincidental that he was flitting between alternate Whitechapels and Poste Houses, lol.

Seems to me to be more than likely a blunder on the part of an imaginative and yet not-so-thorough writer.

[Mike J. G.]

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.

He was certainly a reader, and a bit of a character around the pubs in Anfield.

Odd that he'd be reading books with detailed chapters about the Maybrick's written by a well-known local author who had also written a book on Jack.

Also odd that those books contain enough relevant details to cram into a "diary".

Excerpts from The Fabulous National, pg.81 Liverpool Soundings, by Richard Whittington-Egan:

The year 1841 is noteworthy in that the race was won for the first time by a mare, the valiant "Charity." Since then, only a dozen other "remarkable ladies"
have finished first in this most arduous of races...

"Frigate" (1889)

It is interesting to recall in passing that it was in the year of "Frigate's" win that Mrs. Maybrick and her husband had a quarrel upon the Aintree course which was among the first causes of the murder for which she later stood trial and which became Liverpool's criminal cause celebre of 1889.


This chapter is interesting because much is made of these "rare details" mentioned in the diary, of which, the national winner for 1889 was included.

Odd that those details can be found in a book authored by a well-respected Liverpool writer, who we know was read by Barrett, who also wrote about Maybrick's murder, and also more notably, Jack the Ripper.

A coincidence too many?

[caz]

If it's true that Barrett obtained a Victorian diary from an auction...

You'd have to ask David Orsam about that, Mike. I think he is the one who believes that could be true.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

You don't need to say more, Observer.

Incidentally, what makes you think James Maybrick, cotton merchant, was upper middle class? I've no doubt he would have been thrilled with that observation of yours.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

My copy has just arrived

[richardh]

Mine too Nice book. I'm No.148 WOO!

[caz]

If there is one thing that surprises me about Keith Skinner, aside from the obvious fact that he supports a team that no decent player seems to want to play for, it's that he hasn't told a certain person to "SHUT UP!".

I'm sure Keith is far too much of a gent to tell you to "SHUT UP!", David. He'd probably just say "I say old sport, would you mind piping down about my incomprehensible and disgraceful delay in providing you with the 'so-called' Dixons invoice for the Barretts' word processor from my files?"

Ah, I get it now. Your 'certain person' was little old me, and you were surprised I haven't been told to "SHUT UP!" yet. There's always time I suppose, but nope, Keith has not even hinted in his latest emails that he would prefer me to cease and desist.

The thing about referring to people without naming names is that the casual observer could easily try and match a name to the reference and get it hopelessly wrong.

Here's another example:

I was not, of course, referring to any individual person when I said the situation was disgraceful. I was referring to the situation in general. I know that a certain person would love to make it seem like I am criticising Keith Skinner but I didn't even have him in mind when I made that comment.

If I don't presume too much, and that certain person is little old me again, I don’t need to 'make it seem' anything it doesn't already look like.

Ho hum, I suppose I should make it clear to anyone in this thread deluded or egotistical enough to think that I am addressing them, that all my posts (unless specifically addressed to an individual), and all my requests for these 'research' notes, are addressed to everyone and no-one in particular. If no-one reads and responds then so be it. That is up to them. The 'Diary Team', whoever they may be, can do as they wish. But I would suggest that it is both disgraceful and incomprehensible from a researcher's point of view that a full copy of the 'research' notes has never been made publicly available. It naturally makes me wonder what is being hidden.

Some people might find all this a wee bit disingenuous, considering the context. You had previously observed that the notes were essential viewing if it was going to be claimed that the diary came out of Battlecrease on 9th March 1992. We all know full well that it was Keith who obtained the evidence for this claim, yet you 'didn’t even have him in mind' as the obvious person to approach to get this 'disgraceful and incomprehensible' situation reversed, so you wouldn't be left to wonder what was being hidden.

Anyway, I don't believe I will be betraying any confidences to say that Keith never mentioned his belief in the Battlecrease provenance to me and, on the contrary, made a few comments about the origins of the Diary which actually led me to believe that he didn't think it came from Battlecrease. Now, I hasten to say that he obviously didn't intend to give me this impression and I clearly misunderstood what he was saying.

Hilarious. You 'hasten to say'? I think we all got the gist a long while ago, but it has taken you nine months to put it into so many words. I could have had a baby in that time if I'd been twenty years younger.

In the end, on 4 December 2016, Keith wrote to me to tell me that he did strongly hold to the position that it was his belief that the Diary came out of Battlecrease. But he also first said to me, and I hope that in the circumstances he won't mind me quoting a short extract from his email of 4 Dec:

"I took a quick look at the Message Boards and would like to correct one impression that I may have foolishly given you – and if so I do apologise."

That was, of course, the impression I had that he no longer believed in the Battlecrease provenance.

So you were not merely 'unconvinced' that Keith still believed in it, but had the impression that he no longer did. Good to have that clarified.

A certain person, on 6 December, subsequently wrote in the Incontrovertible thread (having been emailed by Keith Skinner as to what he had written to me): "I trust we can now put this behind us and move on?", yet that person has not been able to leave it alone and has returned again and again to the subject, evidently for propaganda purposes, as if smearing me in an underhand way will somehow show that Diary really did come from under the floorboards of Battlecrease!

I doubt that's the evidence anyone else will be presenting. There is always a reason for my return to any subject, and in this case you will find the reasons in each one of your own posts which prompted a response from me on this subject. You can keep bringing it up, but it's hardly conducive to shutting me up.

I should, I suppose, just add that I haven't had any communication with Keith Skinner at all this year - not since 4th December in fact - and hence, not being in contact with Keith Skinner, I haven't asked him about seeing Mike's 'research' notes, as I've already said, not that I would have asked him about this in a private email because I don't want private information. It's a point for a public forum and the notes should be made public.

Here's another funny thing. I asked Keith in a private email if he would take the notes to Liverpool and make the information public and he saw no obstacle on the grounds of one action being in private and the other in public.

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.

It seems I need to clarify my previous response to you, David, having now gone back to check exactly what I said at the outset.

Right back on 9th November, I wrote this:

Hi David...

...I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.

I don't expect others to accept any of this at face value, but I hope they won't have to wait too long to learn why Keith - and I - feel as we do.

I had assumed this would suffice as an explanation [with my use of the present tense] for how I would naturally know if Keith's position had changed in any way. So when you subsequently asked for evidence of this, or if anyone could confirm his current position, I naturally thought my word was not good enough for you. It didn't occur to me that if only I had expressed myself that bit more clearly, you'd have accepted it happily enough and Keith would not have felt obliged to confirm it for you a month or so later.

In an email sent to me on 6th December at 1.01pm, Keith wrote this:

'David Orsam probably overlooked the point of our close working relationship... I think it is tremendous the way you field those questions and observations on the Message Boards around the diary and people should know that we share the same knowledge about its origins. I will emphasise that point to David next time I am in contact with him – which will be shortly as I see there is another email from him.'

I don't know if Keith did emphasise that point to you, David, but I was not 'gloating' or trying to be 'condescending' in my post to you a bit later that same afternoon, which you only partially quoted when using those words to describe it.

Here it is in full:

Hi David,

Firstly, I didn't mean 'the notion' that Keith holds to that opinion today is 'backed up to the hilt'; I wrote that his position is backed up to the hilt.

Secondly, I was slightly disappointed to see you state as a 'fact' that it's 'clearly no more than an assumption' (or worse - a 'notion') on my part that his position on the Battlecrease evidence remains the same. 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?

Hoping to have time for that mammoth catch-up soon.

Love,

Caz
X

No gloating; no condescension. I was genuinely disappointed that you thought I was the kind of person who would risk misrepresenting my co-author's position like that in a public forum. I also hoped you'd appreciate the spirit in which my question about putting this behind us and moving on was asked. We both knew by that point that Keith had corrected your impression, but nobody reading my post would have known because, far from 'gloating' about it, I deliberately didn't mention it. I thought you might have made some sort of acknowledgement in response, however brief or grudging, but you didn't. Hey ho. I misjudged you. I also put too much trust in our ability to 'move on'- except in opposite directions.

Sorry to everyone else for the long posts!

Good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mine too Nice book. I'm No.148 WOO!

I'm 113. I wonder who is number 1?

Come on Caz, own up

[Observer]

You don't need to say more, Observer.

Incidentally, what makes you think James Maybrick, cotton merchant, was upper middle class? I've no doubt he would have been thrilled with that observation of yours.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh, upon reflection I have plenty more to say.

Also, come on then genius, what category of class wwould you place Maybrick in?

[Sam Flynn]

We need to be careful with class labels, which mean different things at different times, and in different countries. A Late Victorian upper middle class person would have been only a notch or two from the aristocracy, having likely been educated at the most select public schools and universities, with an accent to match.

[David Orsam]

I simply cannot believe I am returning to a subject that should have been rendered dead and buried by my last post in which I proved that a false representation had been made to try and discredit me. Instead of an apology there is just more rambling nonsense.

Let's remind ourselves of what has been said in this thread.

"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."

Was my question answered "almost immediately" by me being told anything of the sort? No, it wasn't. I proved this in my last post. But there has been no apology for this inaccurate posting. No acceptance that false statements have been made in this thread.

Instead, we apparently have to consider what was said to me BEFORE I asked my question (on 29 November), indeed the very post that I was asking for clarification about as to whether Keith Skinner's opinion remain unchanged.

That post was on 9 November in which it was said:

"I can only add that I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling."

The publication of the Ripper Diary (Inside Story) was in 2003 and it wasn't until 2005, as I understand it, that Keith Skinner found his then secret evidence to support a Battlecrease provenance. This information was publicly revealed in 2007. So nothing that was said to me demonstrated that Keith Skinner's views as at 2016, or indeed at any time after 2007, were known by anyone.

THAT is why I asked the question on 29 November:

"what has he actually said that makes you think he finds that evidence compelling?"

In a subsequent post I specifically drew attention to the word "finds" to emphasise that I was asking about the position in 2016, not in 2007.

All that needed to be said was that Keith Skinner had confirmed it a few months ago, shortly prior to November 2016, or something like that. But, as I have demonstrated, the posts were all about 2007.

THAT is why it seemed to me to be an assumption that Keith Skinner held the same views as at November 2016 and I expressed that opinion, further stating that I was unconvinced that he still held the same views. Even to this day, no reference to ANY specific conversation or communication with Keith Skinner shortly prior to November 2016 has been mentioned and there certainly was not one referred to at the time I was posting.

What was then posted on the board after 4 December is completely irrelevant because that was the date I received an email from Keith Skinner and I made no further posts on the subject after I received that email. The reason I made no further posts was because Keith Skinner expressly asked me not to say anything on the subject when I offered to set the record straight and it was stated on the forum "I trust we can now put this behind us and move on?"

I moved on but someone else simply cannot, will not leave it alone, spreading untruths and nonsense about a subject that must be so tedious to everyone else as to be incredible.

[David Orsam]

Extraordinary that the ether has ignored the two ON TOPIC posts I recently made, namely what did Anne Barrett say to deny any knowledge of the origins of the Diary in 1992 and where is the image of the 1986 invoice for the Word Processor?

I suppose it must be difficult to dig up a single quote and it probably takes many days to do it. And it's really hard in 2017 to post a scanned image of a single document. I fully appreciate that. But I wonder if there is a reason why it is not being produced.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No comments on the '25 years of the Diary...' yet

Are you all

[Sam Flynn]

Are you all

Yes, HS. Still reading and digesting it.