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

[Abby Normal]

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...

Ok thanks for clarifying.

The little I do know about him there is no doubt he could have forged it, especially with help from his wife.

And I think in all probability, those who don't think he was capable of writing it are simply underestimating him and or have a vested interest in him not writing it.

[Kaz]

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.

Its easier for the naysayers to cast a shadow over anyones opinion...they're all IN ON IT!

[StevenOwl]

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.

Completely agree with all of that Herlock, although I don't feel the need to apologise for still being on the fence re the Diary. I'll remain on the fence until we know for sure who wrote it and when.

[Kaz]

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

The experts are all in on it.... apart from the ones that agree its a fake.. of course.

[caz]

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.

From Keith, on 8 Sept at 6:31 PM:

'Dear Caroline

I have now heard from Ricky Cobb that he has safely received the copy of Mike’s Research Notes and he will be putting these up on both forums. I have asked they be posted sooner rather than later and before the Liverpool Conference, so that anyone interested in reading them – and not going to the Conference – would have the opportunity of posting any observations/queries about their content and background, which could be addressed by Shirley or myself at the panel discussion.

Re the receipt for the Word Processor...from memory I think you have all the detail on our timeline which, I’m assuming, must have been taken from a photocopy of the receipt which I provided? My Diary Archive is down with Bruce – so unless you have a photocopy of the receipt, I’m afraid David will have to wait.

As always – please feel free to put up any of this email if it helps to clarify the situation.'

Regarding the receipt, I told Keith I don't have a copy and don't recall seeing it either. Most of my copy documents were returned following the book's publication 14 years ago. The brief details I posted from my time line are all I have until Keith gets access to his own archive.

As for Anne's 1992 denial, do please feel free to disregard it, as trying to dig up a single quote from all the millions of recorded words spoken on the subject since 9 March 1992 is not something I am willing or able to devote the time to right now.

If you have read through all the published words and have failed to find a single reference to what Anne was claiming in 1992, I'm happy to leave it there for now. If I do come across her claim from 1992 again I'll let you know and give you the details. We do know that the following year, in early 1993, Anne asked Mike: "Did you nick it?", which is as near as damn it to claiming no knowledge at all a year into the saga. We also know she said nothing in 1992 to Doreen or Shirley to suggest she knew where the diary came from, other than that Mike brought it home one day.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

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.

My feelings precisely, HS. I am, however, pretty well convinced that neither Barrett nor Maybrick composed it or wrote it.

Graham

[Kaz]

My feelings precisely, HS. I am, however, pretty well convinced that neither Barrett nor Maybrick composed it or wrote it.

Graham

25 years on and no one can prove Maybrick didn't...


why not?

[caz]

The fact the electricians drank in the same pub as Barrett is pretty odd.

One electrician, I thought, Mike, unless you know different?

He lived on the same road as Tony Devereux. Now that is pretty odd.

Of course, we should all make allowances for those who are commenting without the benefit of having read Robert's book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

He lived on the same road as Tony Devereux. Now that is pretty odd.

[caz]

That just kind of solidifies my thoughts about the provenance being questionable.

The fact that the electricians didn't finish til late in the afternoon, I fail to see how they could've met Barrett, passed him the book, he read it, then got on the phone.

I thought they supposedly took the book to the university? That also raises questions, least of all because any correspondance from the university would have to be done during normal working hours, as it's not just a 24-hour center for inquiries.

So, the electricians finished work, took the diary to the university, then passed it to Barrett at the pub in Anfield, he read it, and made the phone call?

It doesn't really add up, tbh.

As I said, if you haven't read the book, allowances should be made.

Love,

Caz
X

[ohrocky]

I am sure that I must be missing something here, and I'm prepared for the bullets to start flying in my direction, but I'm still uncertain what the "Battlecrease Evidence" actually is.

As I understand it, the "evidence" is that the diary was discovered hidden under the floorboards by two electricians re-wiring the house. The two electricians concerned have categorically refuted any suggestion that they found anything under the floorboards.

If they had admitted to finding it, then that would open up a raft of questions eg did they read / look at the material? Did they recognise it was an old document and potentially valuable? And perhaps most importantly, what motivated them to hand it over to an alcoholic in the local boozer?

But they haven't.

Maybe the book provides an explanation of why the electricians denied finding the diary. I can think of no motivation for the denial if they did find it.

[Kaz]

I am sure that I must be missing something here, and I'm prepared for the bullets to start flying in my direction, but I'm still uncertain what the "Battlecrease Evidence" actually is.

As I understand it, the "evidence" is that the diary was discovered hidden under the floorboards by two electricians re-wiring the house. The two electricians concerned have categorically refuted any suggestion that they found anything under the floorboards.

If they had admitted to finding it, then that would open up a raft of questions eg did they read / look at the material? Did they recognise it was an old document and potentially valuable? And perhaps most importantly, what motivated them to hand it over to an alcoholic in the local boozer?

But they haven't.

Maybe the book provides an explanation of why the electricians denied finding the diary. I can think of no motivation for the denial if they did find it.

They admit to taking it (TAKING IT!)

Then what happens to them?

[caz]

Even if it was 100% proved that the book came from Battlecrease, Barrett, as it has been shown, was actively seeking a Victorian diary.
Maybe he had to settle for a part used photograph album found at Battlecrease.
If a forgery, Maybrick as a suspect could have been an afterthought inspired by the books origin.
Had Barrett acquired another Victorian diary from a different owner maybe a different suspect would have been presented.

You're kidding, right?

This just gets better and better.

So a Victorian photo album is taken from beneath floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom in Aigburth on 9 March, and by tea time Mike from Anfield has phoned a literary agent in London because he has had 'a cunning plan' to turn it into Jack the Ripper's diary, and it's all done and dusted by 13 April. But then he makes absolutely sure that it won't have a decent provenance by denying to his dying day that it came from Maybrick's house.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

They admit to taking it (TAKING IT!)

Then what happens to them?

Errrm.....

The local Lodge comes for them in the night?

[caz]

I knew they were going to try amd pin it on Michael Maybrick.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=427130#post427130

See post 498.

Who are 'they'? I thought Bruce was the only one and that seems to have been common knowledge since the dawn of time.

Love,

Caz
X