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

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I thought the reason for most folk rejecting the Battlecrease Provenance was the fact that it gives an impossible timeline for raising the boards, finding the Diary, locating Mike Barrett, getting across to the University, and phoning Doreen Montgomery all on the same day! So what day was the visit to the University?

Search me, Graham! There have been a lot of assumptions around here that if there was a visit to the University, whether in relation to the diary or something else entirely, it had to be on that same day, which nobody as far as I am aware, has ever claimed.

No, we don't know for sure that Mike had the Diary on his lap when he rang Doreen, but his reported words were, "I've got Jack The Ripper's Diary, would you be interested to see it?" Another porkie, then? And if so, when did he get his mitts on the Diary?

I can only suggest that, Mike being Mike, he wanted this thing real bad, and if he didn't already have it in his hands on that day, he was determined to get it as soon as poss.

I reckon I missed getting on the list for the new book by a whisker....
Hey ho....

If the interest is there, maybe there will be another printing. I have no idea if that's even possible.

If the interest isn't there, you should be able to pick one up secondhand before long.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Not forgetting, as the time sheet shows, that Rigby entered a full 8-hour shift on the day in question.

As you know, Gareth, Robert offers a couple of reasonable suggestions in his book for how the diary - or at least news of it - may have got to Anfield from Aigburth before the sun was even over the yardarm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

If the interest isn't there, you should be able to pick one up secondhand before long.

With a few pages missing from the front

[Sam Flynn]

As you know, Gareth, Robert offers a couple of reasonable suggestions in his book for how the diary - or at least news of it - may have got to Anfield from Aigburth before the sun was even over the yardarm.

It still stretches credulity to breaking point, Caz

[Graham]

With a few pages missing from the front

And then watch me go....Barrett will have nothing on me!

Graham

[John G]

Okay, let's consider a day time scenario. An electrician discovers the diary under the floorboards at Battlecrease. He's so excited by this fine that he bombs off to the nearest phone box and contacts, of all people, Mike Barrett, a man who he had no proven association with and who, of course, just happens to be at home.

Barrett, not at all suspecting a wind-up, or the possibility/probability that the man's drunk, sets off immediately for Battlecrease.

Now, the electrician then just hands over the diary for nothing, or a few coins from Barrett's back pocket, despite earlier believing he'd made the find of the century (otherwise why the urgency in phoning Barrett.)

And if it's to be argued that Barrett handed over a considerable sum for the document, despite not appearing to be very wealthy, that results in an even more ridiculous scenario, I.e. one in which, prior to heading for Battlecrease, he visits the bank to make a major withdrawal in respect of purchasing a document that he hasn't seen, let alone authenticated, from a man he doesn't know.

Anyway, instead of doing some basic research, or making attempts to get the diary authenticated, as any sane person would have done, he then decides to head over to the library in order to obtain the telephone number of a random London publicist! And what on earth does he say to her? Something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some gullible idiot I originally met in a pub."

Hilarious!

[Abby Normal]

The blurb in the OP has the following statements/questions about this book-


We can finally answer the following questions:
When was it written?
Where was it found?
Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992?
Where has it been for over 125 years?
And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnson’s watch a genuine artefact from 1888?


It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.


whats the answer to these questions and crucially why is the "diary team" so confident its a "genuine Victorian document" ??

[Graham]

Again, I haven't read the book, but if what its readers have posted on these boards is an accurate reflection of what's in it, then IMHO it's still basically just speculation and we are no nearer the truth than we have ever been. And to be perfectly frank, I am now of the opinion that the truth behind the Diary will never be known. I know - never say 'never', but that's how it's appearing.

Regarding the watch, was it genuinely a coincidence that it came to light not much more than a year after the Diary did? That, too, somewhat stretches credulity, especially as the individuals who cleaned the watch and then sold it to Albert Johnson stated they did not recall seeing any markings on it, other than markings they'd expect to see on an old pocket-watch. So who scribed the markings and when? I seem to recall some degree of suspicion concerning one particular person. Not, I should add, Albert Johnson.

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

And of course Deveraux also passed it to him, poor old Mike must have lost it at one stage to be given to him so often, but then Anne wasn't much better at keeping it safe, after yearsin her family she lost it so it could end up under the floorboards for Rigby to give to Mike to give to her to give to Deveraux to give Mike.

My head hurts trying to follow all the lies.

LOL, and then the electrician had already found it in 1989, but somehow found it again in 1992, despite Dodd never knowing about any diary being found when the floor had been taken up previously.


Seems legit.

[Mike J. G.]

Anybody who is up to no good, whether it be an affair let alone murder would not sh*t on their own doorstep as they say.
Some serial killers, especially this one, like connections it's the way their minds work and as our 'diarist' says:
"I said I am clever, very clever. Whitechapel Liverpool, Whitechapel London, ha ha. No one could possibly place it together. And indeed for there is no reason for anyone to do so"

If we're being led to believe that Maybrick was JtR, then intelligence was not the man's forte. From his grammatical errors to his obvious lack of self-preservation and a total disregard for being caught, why would he not strike in Liverpool?

Again, this goes against what many prominent criminologists have claimed about the killer, including the FBI who surmised that the killer would've struck around the area where he lived, this being his "comfort zone". Most opinions from the experts seem to rule out a long-distance killer, and I'd agree.

Why would he kill in Manchester and London but not Liverpool? Why is Maybrick concerned about not shitting on his own doorstep yet seems to have no general regard for being caught anyway?

[Mike J. G.]

Not really. I've just had a load of work done on my house and each morning I let the builders in and then went out. They could have unearthed any hidden artifact and got it out without my knowledge. Could have been the same for Dodd.

No, I'm talking about Dodd claiming that the book was never spotted when the floor had been lifted previously. So, did it just appear beneath the boards in 1992?

[Mike J. G.]

As an ex Public and Reference Librarian I can confirm that it was normal practice for branch libraries and central libraries to hold both Residential and Yellow Page phone books for many of the major cities in the UK.

This would probably have continued into the 90's.

As has been mentioned, the library is in town, near the museum, and isn't open in the evenings, the Saddle pub is in Anfield.

Why people choose to pretend as though this scenario makes sense is quite odd.

[Mike J. G.]

Could it be that more information will be made public at the forthcoming conference, and that certain people are waiting until then to 'reveal all'? I'd like to think so. But even then, would anyone believe it....?

I wouldn't count on it.

[Mike J. G.]

Have you not seen my post re 'spreading mayhem'? I know you saw Gary's 1877 example of a prisoner wondering if he should top himself by means of hanging, because you replied to it.

Here's a handy reminder:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=16515&page=4

Love,

Caz
X

When will you tell me where Poste house was, Caz? Or give me that fella's name who told you the Post Office Tavern was known by that name?

Seems like vague nonsense crafted for the sake of it.

[Graham]

Caz reminded me that Barrett got onto Rupert Crew via information carried by a Pan Book on his shelf, so wouldn't have had any need to track off to a library to find an agent in telephone directories. I would say that this at least is true, but I cannot see it happening on 9 March.

Graham