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

[Mike J. G.]

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?

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?

In fairness to me, it's a while since I've carefully re-read any of my Diary books (including yours) and I should do so, but you're dead right: Page 8 of The Inside Story (I just looked) relates how he obtained Rupert Crew's contact details.

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

Graham

What you've got to remember, Graham, is that there's an awful lot of goalpost moving with this saga.

The story we were led to believe was the one in which all of this took place in one day, now apparently it's being shifted.

Interesting, yet unsurprising.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

You are attending the conference, right? So you can ask Keith Skinner face to face about the known versus the alleged events on 9 March 1992, can't you? Then you wouldn't need to assume stuff on here about the timing and reach conclusions based on your assumptions, which I then get a boot up my backside for not having enough time to address, clarify or correct in the run-up to my much-needed holiday in Wales.

Would you also be willing to take a copy of Liverpool Soundings with you and show it to Keith? He is very interested in the information you say it contains, which would have assisted Mike Barrett in creating the diary text.

Love,

Caz
X

So, am I to take it that all of these people downplaying the RWE sources have not even read the books? lol.

That's laughable.

Will Skinner have the time to answer all of my questions along with everyone elses, Caz? Or will he do what you do and pretend to have things to do, despite finding the time to post here?

[Mike J. G.]

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

Any suggestion that the diary could be taken from Aigburth to Anfield with time left in the day to do anything, after an 8 hour shift, is not only laughable, it's embarrassingly silly.

[Mike J. 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!

Indeed, John!

[Mike J. G.]

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

Not to worry, Graham, Caz and co' are fond of just moving dates around to accommodate any type of pesky error.

It seems the norm now to just make things up to explain away coincidences and issues.

[Trevor Marriott]

It seems the norm now to just make things up to explain away coincidences and issues.

How many times have we see this on these board when some posters become so desperate to protect the old accepted theories.

On one other thread on here there at least three different posters making things up

Why do we waist out time I have to ask?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mike J. G.]

How many times have we see this on these board when some posters become so desperate to protect the old accepted theories.

On one other thread on here there at least three different posters making things up

Why do we waist out time I have to ask?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It beggars belief, tbh. When you have people explaining away out-of-date phrases, and pubs that never existed, and yet they bend the truth to accommodate obviously dodgy timelines and glaring inconsistencies.

People even see Florence Maybrick's name on Mary Kelly's wall, but they don't find the fact that the diarist writes a listed item down in the exact same manner as a book that wouldn't be published for 100 years to be worthy of further consideration.

Maybrick was a true enigma.

[Graham]

Not to worry, Graham, Caz and co' are fond of just moving dates around to accommodate any type of pesky error.

It seems the norm now to just make things up to explain away coincidences and issues.

Mike, I've been posting on this Forum almost from when it began, and I can assure you that I've always found Caz to be one of the more reliable posters one least prone to imagination and speculation over the years. However, nobody can 'get it right' all the time, that's for sure. And it's not just Ripper threads which are prone: you should have been on the A6 thread when it was really hot!

Graham

[Graham]

It beggars belief, tbh. When you have people explaining away out-of-date phrases, and pubs that never existed, and yet they bend the truth to accommodate obviously dodgy timelines and glaring inconsistencies.

People even see Florence Maybrick's name on Mary Kelly's wall, but they don't find the fact that the diarist writes a listed item down in the exact same manner as a book that wouldn't be published for 100 years to be worthy of further consideration.

Maybrick was a true enigma.

It isn't Maybrick who is the enigma: it's the people who without concrete proof claim that he wrote the Diary and was Jack The Ripper. They're the enigma. Maybrick was what he was: a drug-addicted yet reasonably successful businessman who made a big mistake the day he got married.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

How many times have we see this on these board when some posters become so desperate to protect the old accepted theories.

The Maybrick "theory" is comparatively new and far from accepted, Trevor. For an iconoclast like your good self, it should be right up your street

[Sam Flynn]

Mike, I've been posting on this Forum almost from when it began, and I can assure you that I've always found Caz to be one of the more reliable posters one least prone to imagination and speculation

Seconded, in every detail.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, I've been posting on this Forum almost from when it began, and I can assure you that I've always found Caz to be one of the more reliable posters one least prone to imagination and speculation over the years. However, nobody can 'get it right' all the time, that's for sure. And it's not just Ripper threads which are prone: you should have been on the A6 thread when it was really hot!

Graham

My sole problem with some people, including Caz, is an odd insistence that these errors don't matter, and can be explained away by making up vague facts, like how the Post Office Tavern was known as the Poste House, when I can assure you that it wasn't, and that no such evidence for that claim exists on this earth.

I think the fact that some people want to believe Maybrick to be the Ripper is clouding their judgement, and with Caz, her belief in an old hoax is causing her to make a pass for odd timelines, inconsistencies, out-of-date phrases and non-existent pubs.

I find it hard to believe that a person is being reliable when they so brazenly shun glaring errors such as those.

I've nothing against anyone, after all, it's just a discussion about a mystery, but I do have to wonder why some people are overly willing to ignore common sense.

[caz]

Hey Caz.

Your accusation of pot stirring amuses. I mean really? You are in no position to throw stones on that subject.

Point made, Monty old chap.

But at least when I act like a queen mixer I try to make it clear what it is I'm stirring and why. I don't pop up on threads as if at random with cryptic little hints and digs that mean nothing unless one is in 'the know'.

You stated, quite clearly that these notes would be available to the public, and that Casebook were offered them. This is an untruth isn't it? It's fine, just don't dress something up to be what it isn't.

And don't think you can take the moral high ground, Monty. Maybe you were deliberately misrepresenting me or you just didn't bother to read all my posts on the subject. I reported that Keith was handing over the notes for publication here and at the 'other place'. That was his understanding at that time and I was given no reason to question it. His 'offer', if you insist on using a word I don't recall using myself, was to make the notes available to anyone willing or able to post them on both sites. So as far as we were aware there was nothing to be 'dressed up'. It took a bit of fishing on my part to ascertain there was no actual 'flunkie' who was going to put them up here for Keith.

I'm not quoting from the rest of your post because none of it had anything to do with me and I had no knowledge of it.

Why you keep saying ignorance is no defence is beyond me. We're not in a police station or court of law, are we? But if ignorance really is no defence, what is your defence for not knowing this was all going to 'kick off'? When I put out that general request on both boards for anyone willing to help Keith get the notes published, I didn't notice you stepping in at that juncture to warn us not to let them fall inadvertently into the wrong hands. You either knew this was a distinct possibility but chose to wait until the damage was done before passing comment, or you didn't know, which puts us in the same position.

Which is it, Monty? In my world, knowing but saying nothing is no better than not knowing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

It isn't Maybrick who is the enigma: it's the people who without concrete proof claim that he wrote the Diary and was Jack The Ripper. They're the enigma. Maybrick was what he was: a drug-addicted yet reasonably successful businessman who made a big mistake the day he got married.

Graham

I agree, Graham. My point re: Maybrick was in jest, as we're being led to believe that this man was beyond any normal capabilities, and did the kinds of things that even the most truly fantastical people cannot do.

[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" ??

guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?