One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Graham]

To be fair, Graham, Keith made the remark in Liverpool, in response to something the late great Jeremy Beadle put to him there. It was off the cuff, not planned, and he has said very little about it publicly since. He has never posted on the boards in his own right, although I used, on occasion, to act as go-between for him and post any observations he felt should be made - chiefly to set the record straight about what he actually said and meant. I don't recall him being involved with any online book, unless you mean an entry in the one by Chris Jones perhaps?

I really don't believe Keith's intention was to make 'a big deal' of it. If anything, the reactions of others built it up into one for him! That doesn't mean the evidence is any less strong now for the thing coming out of Battlecrease than it was when he spoke in Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

OK Caz, thanks for clearing this up. Yes, it was Chris Jones' book I was thinking of. I recall at the time there was quite a bit of reaction, perhaps over-reaction, to the 'Battlecrease Provenance', perhaps inflated somewhat in my bonce by my worn-out memory cells. I accept that my expression 'big deal' was over-stating things.

I'm interested in any such 'Battlecrease Provenance' as I'd love to get to the bottom of what thosse electricians removed from the house and swanned off to Liverpool University with it. Obviously it caught the beady eye of Paul Feldman, but as nowt more was heard perhaps it was nothing like a Victorian photograph album after all.................

Graham

[caz]

Thanks Caz, what I'm really trying to establish is: what are the reasons for thinking that Mike and Anne did not compose the Diary, whether it's you, me, Harris or anyone else doing the thinking?

If the main reason is that Mike is not believed to have had the 'capacity' prior to May 1992 then what is the basis of this belief?

And what about Anne? Why the "ha ha" in your email when it comes to her as composer of the text?

Hi David,

Very many apologies for my tardy - and necessarily brief - response. You would really need to have had personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick, to get a proper insight into what they may, or may not, have been willing to do, or capable of doing, in respect of the damned diary. There is also the watch, of course, about which the Barretts always claimed total ignorance. Mike never suggested he masterminded that in addition to the diary, for instance.

Their personalities, combined with examples of their handwriting and creative writing skills, have given me no confidence in their ability - individually or together - to have produced anything like the diary as we know it, but of course that doesn't mean they could not both have been living a charade for years, even decades, to put investigators, friends, associates and family members off the scent. So in that respect, no amount of published, verified examples of their handiwork is likely to convince those who were suspicious to begin with and remain so all these years later.

If none of the above changes anything for you, I can only add that I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.

I don't expect others to accept any of this at face value, but I hope they won't have to wait too long to learn why Keith - and I - feel as we do.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I still have to catch up with the rest of this thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi David,

Very many apologies for my tardy - and necessarily brief - response. You would really need to have had personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick, to get a proper insight into what they may, or may not, have been willing to do, or capable of doing, in respect of the damned diary. There is also the watch, of course, about which the Barretts always claimed total ignorance. Mike never suggested he masterminded that in addition to the diary, for instance.

Their personalities, combined with examples of their handwriting and creative writing skills, have given me no confidence in their ability - individually or together - to have produced anything like the diary as we know it, but of course that doesn't mean they could not both have been living a charade for years, even decades, to put investigators, friends, associates and family members off the scent. So in that respect, no amount of published, verified examples of their handiwork is likely to convince those who were suspicious to begin with and remain so all these years later.

If none of the above changes anything for you, I can only add that I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.

I don't expect others to accept any of this at face value, but I hope they won't have to wait too long to learn why Keith - and I - feel as we do.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I still have to catch up with the rest of this thread.

The first signed affidavit Barrett made is very compelling, as to where the truth lies, would you not agree?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hannibal Hayes]

So the electricians have something they think is valuable & take it to Liverpool University, who advise them that it’s not worth quite as much as they thought.

Does anyone know how much work has gone into trying to locate the person/people at Liverpool University who saw this item?

Obviously it was a long time ago & they probably see many things but someone must have a brief recollection? Or would a record have been kept by the Uni of anything brought in to be sold/examined/verified?

Establishing whether anything was actually taken in would be a major development, especially if it can be confirmed what the item was.

[Graham]

So the electricians have something they think is valuable & take it to Liverpool University, who advise them that it’s not worth quite as much as they thought.

Does anyone know how much work has gone into trying to locate the person/people at Liverpool University who saw this item?

Obviously it was a long time ago & they probably see many things but someone must have a brief recollection? Or would a record have been kept by the Uni of anything brought in to be sold/examined/verified?

Establishing whether anything was actually taken in would be a major development, especially if it can be confirmed what the item was.

Feldman says he went to Liverpool Uni and they confirmed something had been brought in, but apparently they wouldn't discuss it any further with him. He also said that he later got into some kind of bargaining argument with one of the elctricians, refused to play ball, and that apparently was that. Whether any other invesitgator(s) after Feldman did anything to discover what this article was, I don't know. When I can find my copy of Feldman's book I'll see if he says anything else.

Graham

[caz]

The first signed affidavit Barrett made is very compelling, as to where the truth lies, would you not agree?

Well clearly I would not, Trev. Unless you meant 'where the truth tells lies'.

Nothing in any of Mike's 'confession' statements has either the ring of truth or any sound evidence to back it up. In fact, much of what he claimed turned out to be demonstrably untrue.

But people will believe what they want to believe, as you well know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Well clearly I would not, Trev. Unless you meant 'where the truth tells lies'.

Nothing in any of Mike's 'confession' statements has either the ring of truth or any sound evidence to back it up. In fact, much of what he claimed turned out to be demonstrably untrue.

But people will believe what they want to believe, as you well know.

Love,

Caz
X

I can't believe a published author has resurrected that old classic retort (I mean Trevor, obviously).

Barrett could have saved himself so much time and effort by declaring the following 'affadavid' [I think that was more or less as Barrett spelt it]:

Lord Lucan and I wrote the journal on an old bedsheet using a variety of crayons and bound it in a photograph album I won in an auction during a holiday on Mars. Obviously, all I had to do was cut out the photographs of the Martians, and the hoax was done'.

The details he provided matter not a jot to the chattering classes who want this journal to disappear from view, so the actual content is simply by the by. All they want to be able to do is to keep trotting out the "But Barrett confessed" line and their defence is - in their eyes - never so well made.

We'll never get away from it. But, hey, whilst I'm on and hopefully attracting Trevor's attention, can I just thank him again for publishing such a clear example of Florence Maybrick's initials on Kelly's wall?

Ike

[David Orsam]

You would really need to have had personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick, to get a proper insight into what they may, or may not, have been willing to do, or capable of doing, in respect of the damned diary.

Hi Caz,

What are you suggesting my personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick (if I had any) would have told me?

Would it be that they were incapable of forging the diary due to a lack of writing ability? Or would it be that they were too honest? Or some other reason?

[David Orsam]

Their personalities, combined with examples of their handwriting and creative writing skills, have given me no confidence in their ability - individually or together - to have produced anything like the diary

I would have assumed that whoever forged the diary would have had least made some attempt not to do so in their own handwriting and to have made an attempt at disguise. Am I wrong in so assuming?

And what is wrong with Ann and Mike's creative writing skills? What have they written that we can look at?

[David Orsam]

If none of the above changes anything for you, I can only add that I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.

I don't expect others to accept any of this at face value, but I hope they won't have to wait too long to learn why Keith - and I - feel as we do.

Has Keith Skinner ever put anything in writing which states that he finds compelling the evidence (whatever that may be) that the diary has a Battlecrease provenance?

If not, what has he actually said that makes you think he finds that evidence compelling?

[David Orsam]

Nothing in any of Mike's 'confession' statements has either the ring of truth or any sound evidence to back it up. In fact, much of what he claimed turned out to be demonstrably untrue.

If much of what Mike claimed in his statements has turned out to be "demonstrably untrue" could you kindly demonstrate those things that are untrue?

And in doing so (if you attempt to do so) it would be especially helpful if you could take into account the comments I made in posts #1574 and #1922 earlier in this thread. And you might also want to consider my #1929 and let me know if any of the 10 points I listed in that post are demonstrably untrue and demonstrate the untruthfulness of them.

[caz]

I would have assumed that whoever forged the diary would have had least made some attempt not to do so in their own handwriting and to have made an attempt at disguise. Am I wrong in so assuming?

Well put it this way, David. If either of the Barretts could disguise their handwriting well enough to have penned that diary, what does that do to the argument that James Maybrick could not possibly have done an equally good job of disguising his own?

I'm not sure one can have it both ways. Also, since the onus is on anyone proposing James as its author to provide the evidence, the same applies to anyone proposing that either Mike or Anne's creative writing skills and/or handwriting could appear in the document.

It's not really my job to provide you with the evidence against that possibility, is it?

For starters, have you ever seen a single example of Mike's handwriting that has the upper and lower case letters all in the right places? All the examples I have seen strongly suggest he doesn't know his upper from his lower and mixes them up at random. If you - or anyone else - can provide one example that differs from this, or an example that shows Anne's writing skills, or disguising ability, perhaps 'we' could look at that? Endless examples of 'negative' evidence wouldn't help as they could have been bluffing all this time, but good positive evidence that they had what it took could not so easily be dismissed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Has Keith Skinner ever put anything in writing which states that he finds compelling the evidence (whatever that may be) that the diary has a Battlecrease provenance?

If not, what has he actually said that makes you think he finds that evidence compelling?

Keith spoke publicly about this in 2007 in Liverpool in response to a question - or observation - from Jeremy Beadle. I expect someone recorded it at the time, but I don't have that information. He did make it obvious to the entire audience on that occasion that he finds the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If much of what Mike claimed in his statements has turned out to be "demonstrably untrue" could you kindly demonstrate those things that are untrue?

And in doing so (if you attempt to do so) it would be especially helpful if you could take into account the comments I made in posts #1574 and #1922 earlier in this thread. And you might also want to consider my #1929 and let me know if any of the 10 points I listed in that post are demonstrably untrue and demonstrate the untruthfulness of them.

Hi David,

I have yet to catch up with the whole thread, and have not yet read the posts from #1541 to #1994 inclusive. I will try to do so soon, for my own enlightenment, but for now I will just say again, that if anyone wants to propose that Mike did tell the truth in his 'confession' statements, in that he was guilty of having a hand in the diary's creation, or at least of knowing who did, I'd be very happy for them to demonstrate that truth. Isn't the onus on them to do that or am I missing something?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Well clearly I would not, Trev. Unless you meant 'where the truth tells lies'.

Nothing in any of Mike's 'confession' statements has either the ring of truth or any sound evidence to back it up. In fact, much of what he claimed turned out to be demonstrably untrue.

But people will believe what they want to believe, as you well know.

Love,

Caz
X

If it was a lie then it was a well thought out lie, certainly not devised by Barratt. Any suggestions as to who might have done that and why if that were the case?

More than one person amounts to a conspiracy to defraud