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

[Kaz]

Ah, so the tiny handful of people who favoured Maybrick as the best of a very poor bunch must have voted loads of times, while all those favouring any other suspect were good little boys and girls and only voted the once.

Unbelievable.

Love,

Caz
X

+1

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, so the tiny handful of people who favoured Maybrick as the best of a very poor bunch must have voted loads of times, while all those favouring any other suspect were good little boys and girls and only voted the once.

Not at all, Caz. The others are just as likely to have had their votes rigged as well, although some suspects have more rabid fans than others. Very often, these are the very suspects who have achieved wider coverage among non-experts thanks to books, films and documentaries. As the poll is open to the general public, a good proportion of certain suspects' votes will no doubt have been cast by people who became "instant experts" just because they happened to watch one programme on the telly.

[caz]

I meant handwriting, and yes I was making a sweeping generalisation with no qualifications.

Unless you have an IT question, pertaining to the Ripper I can bring no expertise to the case.

My sig is on every post caz....my opinion is all I have to offer here.

Many thanks for your frank admission and honesty, DD.

I suppose if one is inclined to the belief that the diary is in Anne's handwriting [albeit consistently well disguised throughout - while not attempting to mimic JM's] it is only a short step to 'seeing' a woman's hand holding the pen. I do think it must be terribly hard for modern hoax believers to remain totally objective, in the face of the claims made at various times by the Barretts of Goldie Street. But surely the same arguments against the diary being in JM's hand ought to be applied to Anne [and certainly Mike]. I am no handwriting expert, but should it not have been possible for someone to have noted certain points of similarity if one of the Barretts had penned it? Is it a skill anyone can pick up if they are determined to deceive? Or is it a secret skill that Anne could have possessed all along, which Mike was able to exploit, and which has protected them both from outright exposure as penman or woman?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Not at all, Caz. The others are just as likely to have had their votes rigged as well, although some suspects have more rabid fans than others. Very often, these are the very suspects who have achieved wider coverage among non-experts thanks to books, films and documentaries. As the poll is open to the general public, a good proportion of certain suspects' votes will no doubt have been cast by people who became "instant experts" just because they happened to watch one programme on the telly.

But it comes down to the same thing, Gareth: in your view Maybrick voters must have been more likely than those favouring any other suspect to cheat and vote more than once, otherwise why did you bring multiple voting into the equation as if it helped to account for the 'most popular' result? If everyone could vote as many times as they liked, it would only have taken one rabid Druittist voting more times than anyone else to rig it in their favour.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

But it comes down to the same thing, Gareth: in your view Maybrick voters must have been more likely than those favouring any other suspect to cheat and vote more than once

Yes, because Maybrick is one of the few suspects who still generates a high degree of partisanship, and who still appears able to attract more than his fair share of zealots, even trolls.

If everyone could vote as many times as they liked, it would only have taken one rabid Druittist...

But since when did Druitt - or Cream, JK Stephen, James Kelly, to mention but three others - attract such rabid adherents as Maybrick? And how many popular, oft-repeated documentaries or news articles have appeared in their name?

[DirectorDave]

Many thanks for your frank admission and honesty, DD.

I suppose if one is inclined to the belief that the diary is in Anne's handwriting [albeit consistently well disguised throughout - while not attempting to mimic JM's] it is only a short step to 'seeing' a woman's hand holding the pen.

I do think it must be terribly hard for modern hoax believers to remain totally objective, in the face of the claims made at various times by the Barretts of Goldie Street. But surely the same arguments against the diary being in JM's hand ought to be applied to Anne [and certainly Mike]. I am no handwriting expert, but should it not have been possible for someone to have noted certain points of similarity if one of the Barretts had penned it? Is it a skill anyone can pick up if they are determined to deceive? Or is it a secret skill that Anne could have possessed all along, which Mike was able to exploit, and which has protected them both from outright exposure as penman or woman?

Love,

Caz
X

Hey Caz,

No need to thank me for honesty, that's why I'm here.

I agree with pretty much all you say there, the handwriting does not resemble Mike or Anne's (I'm taking that on faith btw) and that suggest they did not do the physical writing in the same way as it does to Maybrick.

The writing looks female to me, but it is not because of any conformation bias because I think Anne wrote it, in fact even without a handwriting comparison it makes more sense to get someone slightly more removed than your wife to write it.

[Henry Flower]

For some reason, and for some posters, changing one's mind in the light of new, or more 'compelling' information, is considered a 'bad' thing. I find that frankly astonishing and depressing in equal measure.

Wow, Caz - for someone who often accuses others of spectacularly missing the point, you exhibit here an absolute mastery of the art.

A point was made: that Keith Skinner's opinion and expertise were to be favoured over anything argued by armchair detectives because Keith Skinner has been on the inside as the saga has unfolded.

I made the following point in reply: Keith Skinner's involvement with the protagonists led him to embrace a provenance for the Diary that is - at every level - absurd and scarcely credible. Then a new idea was floated - new 'evidence' uncovered, and suddenly Keith's former position is abandoned in favour of a new provenance.

Now I think you know as well as I do that I'm not attacking anyone for changing their view in the light of new evidence: on the contrary, that should be the standard procedure for any rational adult human, if the evidence is compelling and persuasive. Keith isn't being attacked for changing his mind, and you know it. You're putting up one of your dismal straw-man arguments.

My point was, obviously, what special value does a researcher's 'inside' position grant if they can hold at one point a position that they must now - given the new position they have embraced - think was a pack of lies? Keith Skinner was an insider. He was reasonably satisfied with a story that is patently false, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that being too close to things, or to certain people, exposes one to more risk of being deliberately deceived. From the comfort of my armchair here in Keyboard Warrior HQ, the story Anne invented has never appeared anything other than ridiculous. Keith must, by implication, now agree with that, because the floorboards and the family heirloom tales are mutually exclusive.

No-one is attacking anyone for changing their mind. The point was about being inside. About not seeing the wood because you're deep in among the trees. The clarity of keeping a certain distance. I don't expect a sneering oaf like Kaz to acknowledge that, but I actually expect better than this wilful misunderstanding from you.

Maybe I shouldn't.

[Hunter]

Hello Caz,
Hope things are going well for you...

... I am no handwriting expert, but should it not have been possible for someone to have noted certain points of similarity if one of the Barretts had penned it? Is it a skill anyone can pick up if they are determined to deceive? ...

How was the handwriting comparison done and by whom? If you might know.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Just a couple of questions that I hope you'll be able to answer. Firstly, by way of background; it seems to me that most people who interviewed, or conversed, with Mike think it unlikely that he could have written the diary. However, an important point is that if the diary is a hoax, as I firmly believe, we do not know precisely when it was written.

Therefore my first question is this: am I right in thinking that most people who discussed the diary with Mike did so during a low period of his life, i.e. at a time when he was descending into alcoholism and is marriage was on the rocks?

Now, I could understand why it is reasoned that that Mike, alcoholic Mike, couldn't have written the diary. But what about the younger Mike, the Mike who was able to hold down a job as a freelance journalist- do you think he could have written the diary?

Hi John,

Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery discussed the diary with Mike from the start, in the Spring of 1992, when he had supposedly only just acquired the scrap book to complete its creation. Others, like Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Martin Howells and Paul Feldman, were discussing it with Mike at various points during 1993, well before his life fell apart and he finally claimed, in June 1994, to have authored it himself. None of the above, as far as I am aware, thought it feasible that he could have done this. Even Melvin Harris said he didn't have 'the capacity', although I'm not sure he ever actually spoke to Mike, so I don't know what informed his opinion.

Anne claimed that Mike was drinking heavily by 1988, but as others have pointed out, this need not have impaired his normal abilities to research and write unaided, of which little seems to be known, thanks to Anne tidying up his efforts. He did get sober in his later years, however, and wasn't always drunk as a skunk when making forgery claims, yet he never managed to produce a single piece of unaided writing, in or out of 'confession' mode, that remotely suggested he may once have had the right tools for the job. He could have been bluffing, of course, but if he pretended to be semi-literate all the time he was clinging to his 'dead pal' story, but then became genuinely semi-literate whenever he was desperate to prove otherwise, due to one too many ales, that must have been quite a feat, not to say very frustrating for him!

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

Afternoon All, just passing this along from KS :-

Just before I begin my message to Henry, I’m pleased to say that my application to join Casebook has been approved by the Administrators. The delay, I believe, was inadvertently caused by me – something I did wrong in the registration process – and absolutely nothing to do with the foul rumour (started by me) that David was seeking to get all Chelsea supporters banned from posting anything on any subject, anywhere in the world! My thanks to James for acting as my postman over the past few weeks – and please bear with me as I try to familiarise myself with the correct procedure for posting messages on the Forum.

TO HENRY F.

With reference to your post to Caroline (Caz)...


It is true that I do presently favour the line of investigation which suggests the diary may have come out of Battlecrease House on March 9th 1992. There is direct evidence to show that, on that day, some sort of floorboard activity was presumably going on in Paul Dodd’s living room, as part of the work involved in the preparation to have storage heaters installed later in the summer. Comparison with the 1889 plan of Battlecrease House and the room where this work was being undertaken, shows it to be the same room where James Maybrick died in May 1889. ( I don’t know if this fact was known by Paul Dodd or any of the electricians who worked at the house). There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories. If ultimately it is conclusively established the diary did come out of the house then, in my opinion, we are still light years away from being able to claim that JM was JTR or even wrote the diary or even knew of its existence! Contrary to what I sometimes see hinted at on these boards, I have no vested or financial interest in being able to resolve this one way or another and neither does Caroline. I could not care less whether I am right or wrong. I don’t seek to persuade anybody to share my way of thinking. I am only interested in the truth and where practically possible to share with people material I have accumulated over the past quarter of a century as information and not propaganda.

Best Wishes

Keith

[John Wheat]

You have no evidence that Mike could easily have written the diary. Just wishful thinking. And I notice you failed to address what you meant by 'written'.

Love,

Caz
X

And you have so far presented no evidence that he couldn't. Considering all the bullshit and backtracking concerning the diary the onus is on those who believe Mike didn't fabricate the diary to prove it. As your one of the loudest voices saying Mike couldn't possibly have written the diary either give some evidence that he couldn't have possibly written it or shut up.

[caz]

Wow, Caz - for someone who often accuses others of spectacularly missing the point, you exhibit here an absolute mastery of the art.

A point was made: that Keith Skinner's opinion and expertise were to be favoured over anything argued by armchair detectives because Keith Skinner has been on the inside as the saga has unfolded.

I made the following point in reply: Keith Skinner's involvement with the protagonists led him to embrace a provenance for the Diary that is - at every level - absurd and scarcely credible. Then a new idea was floated - new 'evidence' uncovered, and suddenly Keith's former position is abandoned in favour of a new provenance.

The floorboard claims came more than a year before Anne's, but none of the dates variously given for the former added up, until Keith was finally able to obtain documentary evidence for those dates being wrong.

Now I think you know as well as I do that I'm not attacking anyone for changing their view in the light of new evidence: on the contrary, that should be the standard procedure for any rational adult human, if the evidence is compelling and persuasive. Keith isn't being attacked for changing his mind, and you know it. You're putting up one of your dismal straw-man arguments.

Well that's just terrific, Henry, but other posters [rj being one, but they know who they are] have scoffed and mocked investigators like Keith - and quite recently - for once having clung to Anne and her bad provenance, only to abandon her when another provenance began to look more promising. They decided there were cheap points to score at the expense of anyone changing horses in this way, which is what prompted my own comment on the subject. And despite your protestations that you have the highest respect for Keith's work, you ought not to treat your readers as total idiots. We can all read what you think of Anne's story - the biggest, smelliest pile of horse poo ever - so it's particularly disingenuous to pretend this is somehow not remotely disrespectful towards anyone who has spent more than ten minutes actually exploring the possibility of it being true.

Your point about not seeing the wood for the trees is one made years and years ago by people like Melvin Harris, who seemed to use it as his excuse for not having talked to any of the people he suspected of being involved in the diary's creation. The 'clarity of keeping a certain distance' didn't help him in the end. He was too afraid of a libel action to expose his suspected forger(s), so he presumably couldn't prove anything against them. I do wonder how it would be if the police took the attitude that 'keeping a certain distance' and not questioning anyone directly was the key to 'clarity' and establishing the facts of any case.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

And you have so far presented no evidence that he couldn't. Considering all the bullshit and backtracking concerning the diary the onus is on those who believe Mike didn't fabricate the diary to prove it. As your one of the loudest voices saying Mike couldn't possibly have written the diary either give some evidence that he couldn't have possibly written it or shut up.

When asked to give some evidence to back up that Mike didn't fabricate the diary your silence is deafening Caz

[Kaz]

...it's particularly disingenuous to pretend this is somehow not remotely disrespectful towards anyone who has spent more than ten minutes actually exploring the possibility of it being true.

Love,

Caz
X

Lovely warm welcome Flower is giving to Keith...

Has tremendous respect BUT :-

I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story...

For that opinion thinks he's a gullible fool... priceless

[Kaz]

The clarity of keeping a certain distance. I don't expect a sneering oaf like Kaz to acknowledge that, but I actually expect better than this wilful misunderstanding from you.

Maybe I shouldn't.

Someone needs to step away from the computer..back to his paint brushes...