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

  • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
    I never knew Mike, so my stance since 1992 has been to listen closely to those who did. Seems to me that everyone who knew Mike and who has expressed an opinion on his possible role as Diary forger have all said he simply wasn't capable. If you knew him well and you disagree with that then fair enough.
    And I wonder if these everyone (who is everyone?!?) had a vested interest in the diary somehow?

    So others (like myself as you said) have to know him well to be fair to disagree, but you don't?

    Ahhhh ok
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      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.
      I see I should have apologised for not making my ongoing working relationship with Keith, regarding the diary's origins, clearer to David at the start, so he would have understood back on 9 November that I have been right there, since 2003 when our book was published, and have remained right there to this day.

      I also apologise for having assumed David understood perfectly what I meant but was not prepared to take my word for it.

      There - two apologies for the price of one.

      We share a common language but I clearly need to keep brushing up on my word skills if I am going to get my meaning across first time more often.

      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 do you still fail to understand about our ongoing working relationship? We had been working towards getting the Battlecrease evidence out there this year - I thought that much would have been clear by now if it wasn't at the tail end of last year. Had Keith or I begun to doubt we were on the right track, we would have done each other the simple professional courtesy of expressing that doubt and explaining it at the earliest possible opportunity, instead of which every email we have exchanged on the subject prior to 2016, throughout 2016 and right up until the present, has been to the same end - the establishment of the diary's presence in Maybrick's bedroom prior to 9 March 1992.

      I'll move on if you have, David. [Will just check you haven't written again on the subject following the above.]

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 09-12-2017, 04:39 AM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        And I wonder if these everyone (who is everyone?!?) had a vested interest in the diary somehow?

        So others (like myself as you said) have to know him well to be fair to disagree, but you don't?

        Ahhhh ok
        Err, not sure what you mean. I'm saying that I never knew Mike, so therefore I trust the opinions of those who did, and I don't dismiss those opinions or pick and choose them to suit my stance on the Diary. Seems that plenty of people who never knew Mike are saying that those who did must have got him all wrong just because they want him to be our master forger.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
          Florence A used "Sir James" when quoting Alice Yapp talking about JM. In all of Florence M's private letters she habitually refers to Maybrick as "Jim". Sounds about right to me. As you say, it might be a coincidence, and I'd probably agree if it appeared just once in the Diary.
          But Florence Aunspaugh said Maybrick was referred to as "Sir James", not "Sir Jim". The fact that Florence Maybrick habitually referred to him as Jim is irrelevant.

          It's also irrelevant whether "Sir Jim" appears once or twenty times in the Diary, it must be addressed.

          Regarding the Florence Maybrick letter's, where she refers to Glaydys being often ill. Where are they? Are those also in the Christie collection, or are they available elsewhere?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Observer View Post
            But Florence Aunspaugh said Maybrick was referred to as "Sir James", not "Sir Jim". The fact that Florence Maybrick habitually referred to him as Jim is irrelevant.

            It's also irrelevant whether "Sir Jim" appears once or twenty times in the Diary, it must be addressed.

            Regarding the Florence Maybrick letter's, where she refers to Glaydys being often ill. Where are they? Are those also in the Christie collection, or are they available elsewhere?
            Florence A said that Alice Yapp referred to Maybrick as "Sir James". I'm sure a servant would never have used the more informal "Jim", however his wife did. It adds up perfectly for me; Sir James to staff, Sir Jim to himself and his wife.

            I was mistaken about the reference to Gladys' health, it was actually from a private letter to Florence M from her friend Margaret Baillie where she'd written "I am sorry to hear that your little girl has been unwell again". The letter was found "buried in the archives at Kew" according to Robert Smith, and that particular sentence had never been published. So it's possible that our forger accessed the archive and picked up on that one throwaway comment to add it to the Diary. Shame there isn't a record somewhere of everyone who accessed that particular archive prior to March 1992.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
              Err, not sure what you mean. I'm saying that I never knew Mike, so therefore I trust the opinions of those who did, and I don't dismiss those opinions or pick and choose them to suit my stance on the Diary. Seems that plenty of people who never knew Mike are saying that those who did must have got him all wrong just because they want him to be our master forger.
              Master forger. LOL. I think you tipped your hand right there.

              And what I mean is you said you never knew him. Me neither. so why is it fair for you to say you think he wasn't capable of writing it, but it isn't for others who do think he was?
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • So we have "Sir Jim" and Gladys being frequently ill being mentioned to Trevor Christie by Florence Aunspaugh whilst researching his book in, I assume, the early 1960's; we also understand that neither reference appears in "Etched In Arsenic" and that his notes, in which they do appear, were not accessed prior to 1988 when Keith Skinner visited the University of Wyoming. Is it known with absolute certainty that Keith Skinner was the first researcher to examine the notes?

                The only other two major books (as far as I'm aware) on the Maybrick Case are "The Friendless Lady" by Nigel Morland, and "The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick" by Ryan and Havers. Does anyone know if the references to "Sir Jim" and Gladys's health appear in either of these books? I did read Morland's book some years ago, but don't remember much of it. Are there any other known works which contain references to Florence Aunspaugh and her memories of James Maybrick and his family?

                Graham
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  And what I mean is you said you never knew him. Me neither. so why is it fair for you to say you think he wasn't capable of writing it, but it isn't for others who do think he was?
                  I'm not saying Mike wasn't capable; I'm saying that several people who knew him have said he wasn't capable, and I'm not questioning that assessment as I'm not in a position to know any better. I find it telling that nobody who knew Barrett has come out and said they believed he certainly was capable of researching and then writing the Diary. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
                    Florence A said that Alice Yapp referred to Maybrick as "Sir James". I'm sure a servant would never have used the more informal "Jim", however his wife did. It adds up perfectly for me; Sir James to staff, Sir Jim to himself and his wife.
                    Well it doesn't add up perfectly to me. You're making it up. As far as you have explained there is no reference which points to Maybrick being called "Sir Jim" in his own household.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
                      I'm not saying Mike wasn't capable; I'm saying that several people who knew him have said he wasn't capable, and I'm not questioning that assessment as I'm not in a position to know any better. I find it telling that nobody who knew Barrett has come out and said they believed he certainly was capable of researching and then writing the Diary. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
                      Caz met him and has no doubt he didn't write it...couldn't have done.

                      Comment


                      • Who knew Mike better than anyone? HIS WIFE

                        and what was her question to him when things first took off?

                        "DID YOU NICK IT, MIKE!!??"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                          So we have "Sir Jim" and Gladys being frequently ill being mentioned to Trevor Christie by Florence Aunspaugh whilst researching his book in, I assume, the early 1960's; we also understand that neither reference appears in "Etched In Arsenic" and that his notes, in which they do appear, were not accessed prior to 1988 when Keith Skinner visited the University of Wyoming. Is it known with absolute certainty that Keith Skinner was the first researcher to examine the notes?

                          The only other two major books (as far as I'm aware) on the Maybrick Case are "The Friendless Lady" by Nigel Morland, and "The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick" by Ryan and Havers. Does anyone know if the references to "Sir Jim" and Gladys's health appear in either of these books? I did read Morland's book some years ago, but don't remember much of it. Are there any other known works which contain references to Florence Aunspaugh and her memories of James Maybrick and his family?

                          Graham
                          I was just about to ask whether the F A letter came into the hands of Christie after "Etched In Arsenic" was published. If not I find it strange that the reference didn't find it's way in the book.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
                            Caz met him and has no doubt he didn't write it...couldn't have done.
                            Indeed she did, and Caz isn't the only one. Robert Smith remained in constant contact with Barrett up to his death last year and also remained convinced he didn't write it.

                            Comment


                            • Feel the anger here.....

                              Why doesn't anyone get so angry over Lewis Carroll or Robert Mann?

                              I don't know why but I almost feel as if I have to apologise when I say this but..I'm still undecided on the diary!

                              is forgery so simple that a unemployed ex-scrap dealer could fool scientists at his first attempt?

                              If it's a forgery, and it could very well be, I'm sorry guys but it's not an amateurish one.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                                Well it doesn't add up perfectly to me. You're making it up. As far as you have explained there is no reference which points to Maybrick being called "Sir Jim" in his own household.
                                I'm not making it up, I'm using ascertained facts to reach a perfectly plausible conclusion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X