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

[Iconoclast]

I and others were known to Robert Smith before the diary emerged.

Mr Begg,

You have been for too long the Peter Taylor to Feldy's Brian Clough. I can't help feeling that your take on the entire journal journey would furnish you with more than sufficient funds for a holiday home in Bognor, along with David Orsam and me (we have different holiday homes there - I wouldn't want to set tongues wagging with a little ambiguity here and there).

There's room for one more journal tome and room for one more holiday home.

Get your typewriter out, mate, before you become a senile old duffer and share with us all your thoughts on this pantomime.

I have an old sofa you can borrow when you first move in, incidentally.

Ike
Friend of Truth

[Iconoclast]

Paul

Perish the thought that I would insinuate anything sinister from you. I was merely stating an ascertained fact that you were involved in both, and you have acknowledged that.

What I would say for the benefit of readers in relation to both the diary and the Swanson Marginalia and as you were involved, you may or may not know, that several years ago I met Robert Smith at a Ripper conference where he was showing off the diary, at this time my investigation into the Ripper mystery was in full swing. He knew who I was and my background. I started to ask pertinent questions about his involvement in the diary. He would not answer any questions, he simply picked up the diary and walked off.

The second matter relates to Dr Davies the handwriting expert and his handwriting examinations of the marginalia both in 2006 and 2012 which I believe you were also a party to.

Having had a lot of dealings with handwriting experts over the years, and having read and digested his reports which needless to say supported your belief and the beliefs of Nevill Swanson and Adam Wood that all the handwriting was that of Donald Swanson and no other, There were a number of pertinent questions that I felt needed to be asked of Dr Davies and his findings. But would you believe that all attempts to get him to answer these questions proved fruitless he simply didn't want to be questioned.

I note that Dr Davies was on the payroll of those commissioning him to carry out the examinations.

Now when important players in such a well known mystery refused to be questioned about their involvement, and in the case of Dr Davies their findings, warning bells start to sound and I have to ask why?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Call me crazy, Trevy, but is it not possible that you're simply commenting on a different sort of trend altogether? Maybe it's the way you asked your questions that caused the two to choose not to respond?

[martin wilson]

Hi Trevor.
You are a handsome chap, don't spoil your image with a tinfoil hat.
There is some evidence for you to cogitate, dating from 27th September 1889 in a letter from Baroness von Roques to a Liverpool 'friend'
I quote the relevant passage.

"A statement was circulated in London recently that three volumes of my daughter's diary had been taken from one of her boxes at Battlecrease House by a relative of the family, and offered for sale, and that I had given a large price for them in order to suppress them. There is no truth whatever in this statement. My daughter did not keep a diary. It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

There you go mate, evidence that Florence's mum thought somebody had written something about something. Probably.

All the best.

[Trevor Marriott]

Call me crazy, Trevy, but is it not possible that you're simply commenting on a different sort of trend altogether? Maybe it's the way you asked your questions that caused the two to choose not to respond?

Now how did I know that old chestnut would come up as soon as I related those facts here.

With regards to Dr Davies I never ever got to physically speak to him, and with regards to Robert Smith I had barely finished the first question.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor.
You are a handsome chap, don't spoil your image with a tinfoil hat.
There is some evidence for you to cogitate, dating from 27th September 1889 in a letter from Baroness von Roques to a Liverpool 'friend'
I quote the relevant passage.

"A statement was circulated in London recently that three volumes of my daughter's diary had been taken from one of her boxes at Battlecrease House by a relative of the family, and offered for sale, and that I had given a large price for them in order to suppress them. There is no truth whatever in this statement. My daughter did not keep a diary. It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

There you go mate, evidence that Florence's mum thought somebody had written something about something. Probably.

All the best.

Hi Martin
Thank you for your concern about my well being on here, but taking flak is par for the course.

Its an interesting statement, but does it take us any further, other than a wild speculative theory that the diary could possibly have been one of those books stolen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kaz]

It is quite true that some books are missing. It is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing much that is mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell them more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as all the household effects were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial"

And people wonder why this story runs on and on and on

[Iconoclast]

And people wonder why this story runs on and on and on

Kaz,

It's good to know you ain't alone in the darkness of this journal winter. Where is Old Spyglass when you need him? I fear he has fallen by the wayside in some foreign field, the victim of some wayward arrow, or even more wayward female eyes. He's probably settled down now with kids, maintaining a dwelling, telling old war stories, smoking a clay pipe, and drinking hemp tea.

Keep your sword sharp and your eyes alert, kid. The winter must end and then we can resume our stand against the Naysaying enemy (in all of its terrible forms).

Captain O'Noclast
Admiral of the Fleet
Defender of the Faith
All Round Swell Kinda Guy

[PaulB]

Paul

Perish the thought that I would insinuate anything sinister from you. I was merely stating an ascertained fact that you were involved in both, and you have acknowledged that.

What I would say for the benefit of readers in relation to both the diary and the Swanson Marginalia and as you were involved, you may or may not know, that several years ago I met Robert Smith at a Ripper conference where he was showing off the diary, at this time my investigation into the Ripper mystery was in full swing. He knew who I was and my background. I started to ask pertinent questions about his involvement in the diary. He would not answer any questions, he simply picked up the diary and walked off.

The second matter relates to Dr Davies the handwriting expert and his handwriting examinations of the marginalia both in 2006 and 2012 which I believe you were also a party to.

Having had a lot of dealings with handwriting experts over the years, and having read and digested his reports which needless to say supported your belief and the beliefs of Nevill Swanson and Adam Wood that all the handwriting was that of Donald Swanson and no other, There were a number of pertinent questions that I felt needed to be asked of Dr Davies and his findings. But would you believe that all attempts to get him to answer these questions proved fruitless he simply didn't want to be questioned.

I note that Dr Davies was on the payroll of those commissioning him to carry out the examinations.

Now when important players in such a well-known mystery refused to be questioned about their involvement, and in the case of Dr Davies their findings, warning bells start to sound and I have to ask why?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You were and are trying to insinuate something, Trevor, but you seem to lack the courage to state it plainly. As for people not wanting to talk to you, ranging from the former curator of the Crime Museum through Robert Smith and Nevill Swanson to Dr. Davies (with whom I regret I have never communicated) and others besides, I think you probably need to look no further than yourself. You seem to be gifted with the ability to p..s people off.

[PaulB]

Mr Begg,

You have been for too long the Peter Taylor to Feldy's Brian Clough. I can't help feeling that your take on the entire journal journey would furnish you with more than sufficient funds for a holiday home in Bognor, along with David Orsam and me (we have different holiday homes there - I wouldn't want to set tongues wagging with a little ambiguity here and there).

There's room for one more journal tome and room for one more holiday home.

Get your typewriter out, mate, before you become a senile old duffer and share with us all your thoughts on this pantomime.

I have an old sofa you can borrow when you first move in, incidentally.

Ike
Friend of Truth

I appreciate the offer of an old sofa, but I doubt my thoughts on the diary would provide sufficient funds for a postcard from Bognor, let alone a holiday home there.

[PaulB]

Call me crazy, Trevy, but is it not possible that you're simply commenting on a different sort of trend altogether? Maybe it's the way you asked your questions that caused the two to choose not to respond?

That's what I was trying to say. I wish I'd read your post first.

[PaulB]

Now how did I know that old chestnut would come up as soon as I related those facts here.

With regards to Dr Davies I never ever got to physically speak to him, and with regards to Robert Smith I had barely finished the first question.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nomystery, Trevor. Your reputation preceeded you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You were and are trying to insinuate something, Trevor, but you seem to lack the courage to state it plainly. As for people not wanting to talk to you, ranging from the former curator of the Crime Museum through Robert Smith and Nevill Swanson to Dr. Davies (with whom I regret I have never communicated) and others besides, I think you probably need to look no further than yourself. You seem to be gifted with the ability to p..s people off.

Or those mentioned know that what they have said or written will not stand up to close scrutiny, so staying silent is the alternative

And how did you know I had any contact with the crime museum curator. I dont recall ever mentioning that in public before. So is this another case of you yet again directing traffic.

You are really something else, a leg end in your own lifetime

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The Truth is out there" Chris Carter -The X Files

[Robert]

And how did you know I had any contact with the crime museum curator. I dont recall ever mentioning that in public before. So is this another case of you yet again directing traffic.

Post 125, Trev?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=13

[PaulB]

Or those mentioned know that what they have said or written will not stand up to close scrutiny, so staying silent is the alternative

So, let's see. Either we have myriad people involved in a great conspiracy to keep Trevor Marriott from unleashing his quiver-full of penetrating questions. Or we have a bunch of people who think you are a pain in the proverbial and sought to avoid you. I don't think anyone will have to think about that for too long.

And how did you know I had any contact with the crime museum curator. I dont recall ever mentioning that in public before.

Don't you?

So is this another case of you yet again directing traffic.

'Another case'. 'Yet again'. You haven't a single example of me 'directing traffic', Trevor. You know why I know that? I'll tell you. It's because you are talking balderdash. Do you honestly believe I have any influence at all over a former curator of the Crime Museum? Or Dr. Davies? Or Nevil Swanson? Or anybody else? If you really believe stuff like that, you're further gone than I thought.

[David Orsam]

Whilst there are those in the Naysaying brigade already rejoicing in the possible undressing of the Barrett's explanations for the origins of the journal, the obvious alternative is lost on them: If the Barret's explanations are undone because it transpires that the journal came out of Battlecrease House, then that undoing is their very own undoing - they cannot have it both ways, celebrating the loss of the Barrett creation story without recognising that the journal came from the very last possible place it could have come from if it were indeed a hoax.

Dear Captain O'Noclast,

As the person in this thread who referred to "the possible undressing" (not my words) of Anne Barrett's explanation, I assume you are referring to me, although I don't recognise the words "rejoicing" or "Naysaying brigade" as applying to me.

If you look at my post, however, you will see that I used the word "paradox" to describe the situation. I did this deliberately. The "obvious alternative" is not lost on me at all.

What I was getting at in my post is that those "yeahsayers" who are (or will be) happy to abandon the provenance provided Anne at the drop of a hat in favour of an "under the floorboards at Battlecrease" provenance should at least face up to the fact that it means they are fully prepared to attribute to Anne the creative imagination of someone who could have assisted in an equally imaginative story which is to be found in the Diary.

If it turns out that the Battlecrease provenance is not quite as conclusive as Robert Smith appears to believe (according to the newspaper quotes) there is really no going back.