Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    Of Course Keith's views should be highly respected, although the fact that he's changed his mind over the years demonstrates what a complex case this is.
    But is it such a complex case? It has been made complicated by all those connected to the diary being less than liberal with the truth, and all the researchers and authors trying to seek the truth, but the real truth is never going to surface, to many people connected to this have lied for varying reasons, which again will never be fully known.

    To me it is relatively simple to understand, and yes it would be nice to know conclusively who forged the diary, because it is a forgery and even without the admissions of Barrett there is enough hard facts to dismiss it being the work of James Maybrick confessing to being Jack the Ripper.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 02-06-2018, 04:14 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
      'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

      Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

      It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

      And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

      (None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)
      That's a whole lot of very well made points my friend.

      I as well as others commend you for that post.

      I am always astounded that this carries on after 25 years. To read the posts on the subject only Ike is openly still arguing that JM was the author.
      Given there is no actual evidence that he was the author and people such as Caz believe it to be not by his hand, why oh why is it still debated with such Passion?

      Unless by JM it is totally irrelevant.


      Steve

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
        'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

        Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story. We're supposed to believe that a family had the diary of a famous murder victim in their possession for years - a diary in which he sensationally details the fact that he is also Jack the friggin Ripper - and they don't tell anyone about it!? They don't publicize it!? They don't cash in? They don't make any attempt to get it valued or authenticated? They don't notice the media Ripper-fest in 1988 and decide to tell someone that, yeah, we actually know who he was and we have his diary in the sideboard at home??!! The one thing they decide to do with it is pass it on covertly to a bored unemployed family member in the hope that he might turn it into a novel and boost his self-esteem!!!??? Why turn it into a novel? You OWN JACK THE RIPPER'S DIARY!!!

        It is absurd on its face, preposterous, utterly false, and I frankly don't care who has met which party and had coffee with them, it's an unbelievable story.

        And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

        (None of that is any sort of attack on Keith Skinner, whose work I have appreciated for many years, and for whom I have nothing but the highest respect; it's merely an attack on this "I trust Keith because he met them and you didn't" line of reasoning.)
        great post and points. plus someone who gets so personally involved could get snookered in so to speak, along with having a vested interest.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          That's a whole lot of very well made points my friend.

          I as well as others commend you for that post.

          I am always astounded that this carries on after 25 years. To read the posts on the subject only Ike is openly still arguing that JM was the author.
          Given there is no actual evidence that he was the author and people such as Caz believe it to be not by his hand, why oh why is it still debated with such Passion?

          Unless by JM it is totally irrelevant.


          Steve
          I agree Steve. I'm 99 per cent sure the diary was written by Mike Barrett. Even if it wasn't written by Mike Barrett. It certainly wasn't written by James Maybrick.

          Cheers John

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by John G View Post
            A modern forgery. Basically because the diary's provenance is non existent. For instance, according to Anne's bizarre version of events, it was passed down through the generations of her family, for almost a century, like some incredibly valuable Victorian heirloom. And yet, during this time nobody bothers to try and sell it, or to get valued or authenticated. In fact, the only person who even seems to have bothered reading it was Anne herself. And then, wait for it...Anne suddenly has the bright idea of covertly persuading TD to give it to her husband in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, and in order to boost his self esteem! To add to this nonsense, Anne's father then made the incredible claim that Florence Maybrick was his grandmother. Of course, not a shred of credible evidence is offered in support of this outlandish assertion.

            We then have the alternative version. Apparently one or more electricians discovered the diary at Battlecrease and then gave it/sold it to Mike, who then promptly contacts a literary agent the same day. Of course, not a scrap of evidence is offered in support of this theory. For instance, Mike had no known connection to the electricians and, in fact, vehemently denied knowing them.

            And how on earth does this scenario make sense anyway? I mean, presumably the electrician bunks off work and then somehow, on the same day, he just gives the diary to Mike, a man that he's apparently never met, despite the fact that he considers it to be so potentially valuable that he also fits in a trip to Liverpool University, with seemingly the intention of getting it valued/authenticated.

            Or perhaps he just bumps into Mike in the Saddle on the night of the discovery. Mike then phones directory enquiries and says something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some stranger in the pub-poor fool had no idea what it may be worth. Of course, I've managed to fully authenticate it over a few pints...please put me through to a random literary agent."

            Hilarious!
            Hi John G.

            You are absolutely correct. None of these scenarios makes sense and there is absolutely no proof that any of them happened. Any provenance for the Diary is absent.

            Best regards

            Chris
            Christopher T. George
            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
            just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
            For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
            RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
              Hi John G.

              You are absolutely correct. None of these scenarios makes sense and there is absolutely no proof that any of them happened. Any provenance for the Diary is absent.

              Best regards

              Chris
              That is all key as far as I'm concerned.

              Comment


              • #52
                Henry quite probably stated aloud what a lot of people were thinking privately.
                That said, it might be pointed out in Keith Skinner's defense (and Shirley Harrison's for that matter) that by staying 'close' to Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, they were able to gather information that would have otherwise been lost. None of the early researchers had the powers of the police; they couldn't subpoena witnesses or demand bank statements, lie detector tests, etc., They had to muddle through the best they could and use persuasion. It's ironic; I'm completely a 'modern hoax' advocate--I think there is not doubt whatsoever--but I think we owe them something of a debt. Harrison 'made the rounds,' questioned people, and reported back. And (irony again) the single gravest piece of evidence against Barrett--the purchase of the maroon diary--would not have been fully confirmed if Keith had not obtained it from Anne Graham (along with the receipt). He couldn't have done that from the wings. So that certainly demonstrates great integrity--something worth remembering as we rake one another over the coals.

                Comment


                • #53
                  “But is it such a complex case? It has been made complicated by all those connected to the diary being less than liberal with the truth, and all the researchers and authors trying to seek the truth, but the real truth is never going to surface, to many people connected to this have lied for varying reasons, which again will never be fully known.”

                  As you rightly say, the case has been made complicated.
                  We have a ‘Diary’, it exists and it has not gone away yet. It’s either genuine or it’s an early hoax or it’s a later hoax. It’s written by Jack the Ripper or it’s not. It’s written by James Maybrick (who is Jack the Ripper) or it’s not, or it’s written by A N Other.
                  It is very unfortunate in having dodgy provenance due to the circumstance surrounding its appearance. We have the Mike Barrett forging it theory and then the theory of it being passed down through the family from Billy Graham via Ann and then via the man in the pub to Mike.
                  At the same time we have had the whispers of electricians finding it under floorboards at Battlecrease and again theories of Mike Barrett being involved.
                  The most ridiculous recent theory abounding currently is that Mike, having forged the ‘Diary’, then had it smuggled INTO Battlecrease House whilst electricians were working there so they could find it? It beggars belief sometimes.
                  I’m 100% certain that Mike was incapable of either forging the ‘Diary’ or having any part in the production of it.
                  Unfortunately, almost all those involved in the alleged line of provenance regarding the appearance of the ‘Diary’ are now deceased barring the electricians and Ann Graham and I believe that a lot of this tangled web could simply be cleared by Ann Graham if she would be honest in her account.

                  “To me it is relatively simple to understand, and yes it would be nice to know conclusively who forged the diary, because it is a forgery and even without the admissions of Barrett there is enough hard facts to dismiss it being the work of James Maybrick confessing to being Jack the Ripper.”

                  Well, to me personally it is relatively simple to understand, because it is not a forgery and I believe it was written by James Maybrick.
                  Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.
                  ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Spider View Post
                    Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.
                    You think a majority think it is genuine?

                    In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority.
                    My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                    Dave.

                    Smilies are canned laughter.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                      You think a majority think it is genuine?

                      In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority.
                      Yes two people is not a majority.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Spider View Post
                        “But is it such a complex case? It has been made complicated by all those connected to the diary being less than liberal with the truth, and all the researchers and authors trying to seek the truth, but the real truth is never going to surface, to many people connected to this have lied for varying reasons, which again will never be fully known.”

                        As you rightly say, the case has been made complicated.
                        We have a ‘Diary’, it exists and it has not gone away yet. It’s either genuine or it’s an early hoax or it’s a later hoax. It’s written by Jack the Ripper or it’s not. It’s written by James Maybrick (who is Jack the Ripper) or it’s not, or it’s written by A N Other.
                        It is very unfortunate in having dodgy provenance due to the circumstance surrounding its appearance. We have the Mike Barrett forging it theory and then the theory of it being passed down through the family from Billy Graham via Ann and then via the man in the pub to Mike.
                        At the same time we have had the whispers of electricians finding it under floorboards at Battlecrease and again theories of Mike Barrett being involved.
                        The most ridiculous recent theory abounding currently is that Mike, having forged the ‘Diary’, then had it smuggled INTO Battlecrease House whilst electricians were working there so they could find it? It beggars belief sometimes.
                        I’m 100% certain that Mike was incapable of either forging the ‘Diary’ or having any part in the production of it.
                        Unfortunately, almost all those involved in the alleged line of provenance regarding the appearance of the ‘Diary’ are now deceased barring the electricians and Ann Graham and I believe that a lot of this tangled web could simply be cleared by Ann Graham if she would be honest in her account.

                        “To me it is relatively simple to understand, and yes it would be nice to know conclusively who forged the diary, because it is a forgery and even without the admissions of Barrett there is enough hard facts to dismiss it being the work of James Maybrick confessing to being Jack the Ripper.”

                        Well, to me personally it is relatively simple to understand, because it is not a forgery and I believe it was written by James Maybrick.
                        Each to their own, but I have to stand with Ike and the silent majority.

                        The naysayers are always going to jump on the provenance as reason to bury the diary as theres very little else they have.

                        There was a programme on back in sep/oct, "Britains lost masterpieces", works of art by the worlds greatest artists, buried in store rooms, covered up never to see the light of day simply because the provenance has been lost. Great lengths, time and expertise were used to prove the pieces of art got the recognition they deserve.

                        Theres a few doing the same with the diary, going out of their way to find that one piece of information that unlocks the truth, simply remaining open minded and doing some real detective work..

                        And for that what do we get in return.... mud slinging ...poor show IMO

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          "In all honesty I think you are standing with the mouthy minority."

                          There is a Suspect Survey on casebook, and the top suspect since the appearance of Maybrick and the 'Diary' has been Maybrick.
                          This is not due to the majority of posters on here. It is due to the silent majority, the same silent majority who are loathe to post on here due to the lambasting they receive from the anti-diary camp who in the main have in fact little to offer to the debate but shoot down those that do post.

                          And so on the contrary, it is a portion of the anti-diary camp, who having little to debate, are in fact the 'mouthy' ones. You have adequately proven my point
                          ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Just passing this along from KS :-


                            TO R.J.PALMER

                            Thank you for your two recent posts Roger, #33 and #34. I’m log piling a list of questions for you, in response to some of your previous statements, but just wanted to quickly clarify your reference to ‘Ripper Diary’ choosing to ignore Melvin Harris’s article in “Ripper Notes” about Mr Kane’s handwriting. You say Melvin’s observations and examples appeared in “Ripper Notes” around 2002? Checking back through my back copies, I cannot find it, although there is a five page criticism by Melvin on ‘Ripper Diary’ which, in part, discusses the handwriting “...of one of Devereux’s friend who witnessed his [Devereux’s] Will” I take this to be Mr Kane. This appeared in the January 2004 issue of “Ripper Notes” (p.45) and our book “Ripper Diary” was published in 2003 – which makes me think I must have missed the article which you have in mind? It’s strange though that Melvin doesn’t back reference it in his 2004 article? Are you able to identify which issue it appears in please? Melvin’s feature, (although a blistering attack on my partisanship, deception and incompetence), does give his side of the story and is worth reading for balance. I’m going to ask James if he could create a link to it for those who are interested.

                            All Good Wishes

                            Keith
                            Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The naysayers are always going to jump on the provenance as reason to bury the diary as theres very little else they have.
                              Yeah apart from the handwriting, post house, one off, a confession of forgery, a retraction of confession, lack of detail and no dates.

                              There was a programme on back in sep/oct, "Britains lost masterpieces", works of art by the worlds greatest artists, buried in store rooms, covered up never to see the light of day simply because the provenance has been lost. Great lengths, time and expertise were used to prove the pieces of art got the recognition they deserve.
                              I've watched all those shows and for every masterpiece lying in some cellar with lost providence there will be multiple forgeries that never had one to lose in the first place.

                              Art forgery is a billion dollar industry and it is not uncommon for a painting to have a provenance be billed as genuine only to turn out is is in fact a forgery.

                              And for that what do we get in return.... mud slinging ...poor show IMO
                              I don't think it is a poor show, expecting people to be all nicey nicey when they are being told to keep an open mind about something that started out preposterous and got even more so over the last 25 years is asking a bit much.
                              My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                              Dave.

                              Smilies are canned laughter.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Spider View Post

                                There is a Suspect Survey on casebook, and the top suspect since the appearance of Maybrick and the 'Diary' has been Maybrick.
                                This is not due to the majority of posters on here. It is due to the silent majority, the same silent majority who are loathe to post on here due to the lambasting they receive from the anti-diary camp who in the main have in fact little to offer to the debate but shoot down those that do post.
                                Unless someone has changed the definition of "majority" without telling me you are just plain wrong.

                                9874 (Maybrick votes)
                                /
                                75805 (Total votes)
                                =.130 * 100 = 13.0%

                                13.0% is not a majority.
                                My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                                Dave.

                                Smilies are canned laughter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X