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

[Observer]

No explanation required, Observer. You only have to be able to read - and then compare the two. Why let the likes of Paul Feldman do your reading and thinking for you?

Love,

Caz
X

Feldman didn't enter into the conversation until you introduced him. His style reminds me of you though.

[Observer]

I'm disappointed, Gareth. You really think the author was aiming to make the diary come across as authentic ripper-speak with the help of all those funny little rhymes?

Love,

Caz
X

First Hunter, and now Sam Flynn. Get over the disappointment, you can't be right all the time you know.

[Observer]

Good for you, Observer. You keep believing it if it makes for an easier life.

It would make life a lot more easier for you if you dropped this nonsense about the Journal being an old hoax. The "Eight Little Whores" poem proves that. And also, as David Orsam has proved, the "one off instance " phrase was not in existence in the context it was used in the Journal in 1888/9.

One final thing for now. Why do you suppose some people are incapable of thinking for themselves? Because it makes for an easier life perhaps?

Answer the question then. Why did Mike Barrett attempt to buy a late Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 pages, and then turn up with a photo album complete with the so called words of James Maybrick inside?

[Observer]

I've never heard 'the total lack of evidence' being described as 'moral decency' before. You live and learn.

You'll never live and learn

And you know anything at all about Mike's 'literary ability' - how, exactly?

The man was just about capable of composing a legible sick note, Observer. How do I know that? Because I actually took the trouble to observe, and not believe what anyone else - particularly Mike himself - tried to tell me.

Ok, you knew Mike, did you know him in the years before the Journal appeared? Is it true that he wrote articles, and had them accepted for the Look In magazine. [/QUOTE]

[Phil Carter]

I do, Caz. Why else would the author have done it? It's pretty clear to me that he/she did, and came a cropper as a result.

By way of analogy, if someone a hundred years from now found a Diary of Maurice Micklewhite, and found the text to contain a fair sprinkling of the phrase "Not a lot of people know that", it would be fair to conclude that whoever wrote the diary believed they were making it sound more authentic by including a phrase that Maurice Micklewhite, i.e. Michael Caine, was known to use. However, if they'd done a bit of research, they'd have found that Caine didn't really use the phrase.

The belief that he did stemmed from when Peter Sellers used the phrase when impersonating Michael Caine on the Parkinson show in the early 70s. Umpteen club and television impersonators seized on it and made it part of their acts, with the effect that "Not a lot of people know that" became indelibly linked with Michael Caine in the public consciousness. Even now, nearly 50 years after Sellers' appearance with Parky, any amateur impression of Michael Caine is almost certain to contain the phrase.

Ditto Saucy Jacky and his love of writing funny little rhymes. That's kind of what he did, innit? Well, maybe not...

Hello Gareth,

I hate to correct you about the Sellers story, but when interviewed by Parkinson in one of his very last programmes, Caine himself recalled the story of how it all started.

Apparently Sellers was well known as a gadget buff. Loved new gadgets. In the 1960's Caine bought a new fangled telephone answering machine that recorded messages. He happened to have Sellers over near the time Caine was about to go on holiday. Peter Sellers, an expert at mimicry, said he would do the auto-answer for the phone.
If I recall correctly, he said..in a Caine voice impression,
"Sorry, I cant get to the phone right now. .not a lot of people know that....."
( I may be recalling the exact sentence incorrectly..but the story is correct)

It was Peter Sellers doing a Michael Caine impression recorded on his (Caine's) telephone answering machine in the 1960"s.

It then..in the 1970's grew through the story you told.
(Which is the Sellers version of the origin)


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gareth,

Its on youtube. Michael Caine interview pt 2- Parkinson.

Just watched it again.
It was Sellers' own answer machine..and Michael phoned up Sellers one day and heard Sellers doing a Caine impression as described above.
Glad I checked...half right isn't bad for a poor memory. Lol


Phil

[phantom]

Hi Observer

Thanks for the response.

And yes I got a bit muddled twice yesterday re: Heneage Court reference and referring to the poem as "Seven...". In my defence I must've been thinking of my 7pm knock off lol

Cheers.

[Kaz]

Feldman didn't enter into the conversation until you introduced him. His style reminds me of you though.

Take a Valium - unobservant... or I'll be forced to use my GIF on you again

[Sam Flynn]

It was Peter Sellers doing a Michael Caine impression recorded on his telephone answering machine in the 1960"s.

It then..in the 1970's grew through the story you told.

Indeed, Phil, but if it weren't for Sellers' telling the story on Parkinson, we'd almost certainly never have heard about it, and a generation of 2nd and 3rd rate impressionists wouldn't have latched onto the phrase and popularised it.

Thanks for the extra detail, nonetheless. Not a lot of people knew that, myself included

[caz]

By way of analogy, if someone a hundred years from now found a Diary of Maurice Micklewhite, and found the text to contain a fair sprinkling of the phrase "Not a lot of people know that", it would be fair to conclude that whoever wrote the diary believed they were making it sound more authentic by including a phrase that Maurice Micklewhite, i.e. Michael Caine, was known to use. However, if they'd done a bit of research, they'd have found that Caine didn't really use the phrase.

Hi Gareth,

It would also be fair to consider that whoever wrote this particular diary wasn't being serious but intended it as a spoof or burlesque. Did Harry Enfield & Chums think they were doing an authentic impression with their 'Michael Paine - Nosey Neighbour' sketch? Don't think so.

Ditto Saucy Jacky and his love of writing funny little rhymes. That's kind of what he did, innit? Well, maybe not...

And that's what our diarist chose to focus on - the absurdity of all those funny little written confessions to the police, of varying degrees of literacy and wit. If you were going for authenticity in the late 1980s/early 1990s, in the wake of Peter Sutcliffe's conviction for the Yorkshire Ripper murders and all the attendant publicity, would you really turn the humourless bastard who was his late Victorian equivalent into a total buffoon of a character, trying to be witty by scattering funny little rhymes throughout a whopping 63-page confession? Would you not be aiming to write the dreary, self-serving and sickening thoughts of the Whitechapel Murderer, as opposed to the black comedy musings of "Jack the Ripper", who might have been the equivalent of the Yorkshire Ripper hoaxer if it wasn't for the more authentic lack of wit shown by the latter?

I'm thinking of writing Piers Morgan's diary, in which he describes sailing into Whitby and longing to sink his fangs into Lucy Westenra's beautiful neck. But I'm afraid people may actually think I'm being serious.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm not the only one suggesting this.

So who else is so ignorant that they think McCormick invented counting rhymes?

I can't quite believe some of the rubbish I'm reading here. Is there a joke I'm missing? I hate missing jokes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If it's not a modern hoax then Maybrick is the author of the Journal.

Then I think I understand your difficulty, Observer. If I had reached that conclusion I too would be plumping for a modern hoax - 'modern' being defined as late 80s/early 90s with Barrett involvement.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For your information it was Hunter who first suggested that the "Eight Little Whores" poem is a fly in the ointment as far as the authenticity of the Journal is concerned. And, it seems, he considers, as I do, that it puts a big dent in the your crackpot theory that it's an old hoax.

For your information it was almost certainly not Hunter who first suggested this. It has been doing the rounds for donkey's years, and it was probably Mel Harris who started it after swallowing Paul Feldman's suggestion that the diary author needed to have read the "Eight Little Whores" poem in order to include a funny little counting rhyme featuring "Sir Jim's" first three 'whore' murders.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

Then I think I understand your difficulty, Observer. If I had reached that conclusion I too would be plumping for a modern hoax - 'modern' being defined as late 80s/early 90s with Barrett involvement.

Love,

Caz
X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO6M4ngKRp0

[caz]

Ok, you knew Mike, did you know him in the years before the Journal appeared? Is it true that he wrote articles, and had them accepted for the Look In magazine.

No to the first question, Observer. Did you?

I don't know if he had any articles accepted that were not edited beyond the point of recognition. I did see one word puzzle he tried to submit, which for obvious reasons was rejected. It was very smutty and didn't spell out the word he had intended.

I don't recall seeing any handwritten examples of Mike using joined-up writing, or upper and lower case letters correctly.

I think he could read perfectly well, although I know little about his comprehension or verbal reasoning skills.

I guess, just as is the case with Maybrick, it's up to those who still insist Mike had something to do with creating the diary to prove it. Mocking those of us who are highly sceptical, regardless of whether we are equally sceptical about Maybrick as author, is not going to achieve anything.

Love,

Caz
X