One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hi Kaz,

Quick correction.

Mike (said he) first contacted Pan Books on March 9, 1992 and they referred him to Rupert Crew Literary Agency (Doreen Montgomery) where he introduced himself as Mike ‘Williams’ and asked whether they would be interested in seeing the diary of JtR. It was Doreen who then contacted Shirley and they decided to explore further. On March 10, 1992, Doreen wrote to Mike ‘Williams’ expressing their interest. On April 13, 1992, Mike took the diary to London.

Obviously, your point is about whether or not the word 'diary' was said to have been used during that fateful first contact on March 9 and - you were right - it was (but I figured I should correct your secondary point regarding to whom it was said).

Cheers!

Ike

Actually, if Mike had the text prepared and ready to go, on his word processor, was he taking a bit of a risk in describing it to Doreen as a 'diary'? We know the finished product was not a real diary - but Mike wouldn't have known that if it didn't yet exist and he was about to ask Martin Earl for a real diary. We also know that the content spanned two calendar years, covering a period from the Spring of 1888 to the May of 1889, and only the final entry was dated - something Mike would have known in that event. So he should have known it wasn't in a form that could easily have been accommodated in a real diary, and therefore he might need to be more flexible and make do with something that was very obviously not a diary, nor ever expected to be turned into one.

Yet this was how Mike described it to Doreen - 'the' diary of JtR.

Someone who was shown the finished product and decided that the writing in it, separated roughly into 'entries', plus the one date at the end, made it a makeshift diary, but a diary none the less, written in this old album or scrapbook, or simply this "old book", could have reasonably described what he had seen as a diary, when speaking to Doreen. If this was how Mike saw it on 9th March 1992, he wouldn't have known what period this makeshift diary covered, nor the author's identity, real or claimed, nor the reason for it ending on that date in May 1889. He'd have had no idea that the author had supposedly died a week later, and that therefore a real diary for anything other than 1888-1889, never mind 1891, would have been useless for whoever had written this.

However, if Mike had no idea on 9th March 1992 what he might be able to obtain - not for Sir Jim's diary as such, but for this series of rambling private thoughts already prepared - would he have promised Doreen a "diary", and then asked Martin Earl for a "diary", when a real diary was arguably not what the text demanded, nor what its author could have used?

And I still don't think it's feasible that Doreen didn't think to ask Mike - Williams or Barrett - what he meant by a 'diary', or that he was able to fob her off until 31st March 1992, without giving her a sodding clue about what she could expect his 'diary' to look like physically:

"It reads like a diary, that's all I can tell you"?

Or:

"It reads like a diary, but it's in an old book that looks more like an album, with pages cut from the front and several blank pages after the last page of writing"?

People had better pray it was more like the former than the latter.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

see above. im just waiting for more hilarity about Ants and Dairies.

it is a fascinating and humorous read though to see how long this nonsense has been perpetuated. great fun!

So you take no responsibility for perpetuating the nonsense, even after suggesting that the posters here can be divided equally into two halves: either dead or brain dead?

Still waiting to learn which category you see yourself in.

Dead or brain dead, that is the question.

I presume it's the latter, since dead people don't seem to have a lot of fun.

So do you consider yourself brain dead because you are still here, with no better fun to fill your empty days and nights with?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

So you take no responsibility for perpetuating the nonsense, even after suggesting that the posters here can be divided equally into two halves: either dead or brain dead?

Still waiting to learn which category you see yourself in.

Dead or brain dead, that is the question.

I presume it's the latter, since dead people don't seem to have a lot of fun.

So do you consider yourself brain dead because you are still here, with no better fun to fill your empty days and nights with?

Love,

Caz
X

lol/ caz if you hadnt figured out by now i dont give a rats arse about it any more. Im way past being exasperated and frustrated by the whole silly charade and my only interest is in the amusement of it all now. so go ahead and insult away i dont care. just at least try to do with a modicum of humor.

and for the the amount of time youve spent on this thread and this half arsed hoax, you tell me who has "empty days and nights".

I actually gotten to the point I feel sorry for you and your silly band of diary defenders. but dont worry, even bad press is better than none, so carry on!

[caz]

lol/ caz if you hadnt figured out by now i dont give a rats arse about it any more. Im way past being exasperated and frustrated by the whole silly charade and my only interest is in the amusement of it all now. so go ahead and insult away i dont care. just at least try to do with a modicum of humor.

and for the the amount of time youve spent on this thread and this half arsed hoax, you tell me who has "empty days and nights".

I actually gotten to the point I feel sorry for you and your silly band of diary defenders. but dont worry, even bad press is better than none, so carry on!

Why would any kind of 'press' interest me, Abby?

And it wasn't my intention to 'insult' you. You did that all by yourself, when you described everyone who had posted on this thread as either dead or brain dead.

If you are reading along just for the pure amusement, why post at all, and risk exposing yourself as a Billy No-mates, whose only fun in life comes from poking fun at the rest of us, including Orsam and RJ Palmer, who are still trying to find the ultimate proof to convince all of two posters, who say the handwriting alone doesn't do it for them?

I feel sorry for Orsam and RJP and their silly band of Barrett believers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just had another thought...

If Mike wasn't able to tell Doreen anything about the physical condition of the 'diary' before 31st March 1992, except to call it a "diary"; and if we also allow for Doreen not asking or caring about any further details throughout the March, in spite of him using a false name when first contacting her, I have to wonder what she made of the fact that by April the diary was no longer a diary, but had morphed into what was now very obviously a partially used scrapbook/guardbook/photo album?

Would Doreen not have been a tad miffed at best, if not downright suspicious of what this Scouser was up to?

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

To be fair, if he'd accurately described it, I think Doreen would be suspicious. Or she should have been, what with all them missing pages and all. It's another can't win situation. Describe it correctly, it sounds shonky at best. Gloss over the shonkyness, he invites accusations of misleading / lying / not being in possession at all. It's a good thing Doreen was a trusting woman. More Barrett luck. First publisher approached goes for it, no questions asked. Or perhaps little in the way of questions.

[Abby Normal]

Why would any kind of 'press' interest me, Abby?

And it wasn't my intention to 'insult' you. You did that all by yourself, when you described everyone who had posted on this thread as either dead or brain dead.

If you are reading along just for the pure amusement, why post at all, and risk exposing yourself as a Billy No-mates, whose only fun in life comes from poking fun at the rest of us, including Orsam and RJ Palmer, who are still trying to find the ultimate proof to convince all of two posters, who say the handwriting alone doesn't do it for them?

I feel sorry for Orsam and RJP and their silly band of Barrett believers.

Love,

Caz
X

like I said if your going to be insulting , at least have a sense of humor. and originality.

its all big one big joke anyway caz, and the joke is on you. later

[caz]

To be fair, if he'd accurately described it, I think Doreen would be suspicious. Or she should have been, what with all them missing pages and all. It's another can't win situation. Describe it correctly, it sounds shonky at best. Gloss over the shonkyness, he invites accusations of misleading / lying / not being in possession at all. It's a good thing Doreen was a trusting woman. More Barrett luck. First publisher approached goes for it, no questions asked. Or perhaps little in the way of questions.

Hi Al,

To be fair, we don't know how Mike described the physical diary to Doreen in March 1992, but I find it almost impossible to believe she wouldn't at least have asked him to do so. Assuming he had seen the finished product when phoning her, he'd have been hard pressed to keep the truth about its condition a secret for long, once he had established that yes, she was interested in "seeing it". How else was he ever going to move to stage two? 'Dear Publisher, Mr Barrett, who initially called himself Mr Williams, says he has the diary of Jack the Ripper, no less. I haven't seen it myself, but would you care to make an offer? Yours more in hope than expectation...'

But actually, it just didn't happen in the way you describe, nor that quickly. I imagine Doreen would have been as suspicious as anyone in her profession, considering the recent embarrassment over the Hitler Diaries, but what did she have to lose by seeing what Mike was claiming to have acquired? She didn't need to trust him initially. Mike had the expense of travelling down to London at peak time on Monday 13th April. Robert Smith was not the first publisher to be invited to examine the diary and put in an offer for the publishing rights. And do you know anything about Doreen, and whether she was the sort of person who would have taken it one step further, on seeing that Mike's 'diary' was in fact a partly used guard book, if she thought it was probably just a shoddy hoax? Robert had 'get out' clauses built into the contract because he didn't want to end up publishing something he suspected of being a fake. Many questions were asked even before Doreen decided to invite publishers to see the "old book".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

like I said if your going to be insulting , at least have a sense of humor. and originality.

its all big one big joke anyway caz, and the joke is on you. later

I just don't see where I was insulting you, Abby.

Was it not entirely the other way round, with you insulting everyone still alive who has ever posted on this thread, by describing them all as 'brain dead'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Morning Campers,

Today's posting masterclass comes to us courtesy of Abby Normal, who will be demonstrating how to post here with humour and originality, without the need to insult anyone. Are you sitting comfortably, boys and girls? Then Abby will begin with the first lesson, followed by some recent examples for us to follow:

like I said if your going to be insulting , at least have a sense of humor. and originality.

its all big one big joke anyway caz, and the joke is on you. later

just for shits and giggles start reading this thread from the start.

tom mitchell lol

half the people are dead.

the other half are brain dead

not giving a fuk

but your a clever chap icon. why waste your time here? you should be off bird dogging chicks or at least writing creative fiction stories.
oh wait . you have

put that Ancestry subscription to good use and finally confirm for us that you are, in fact, descended from Troglodytes.

when is a diary not a diary or an aunt not an aunt? on a maybrick thread of course. bizarro world. : O

see above. im just waiting for more hilarity about Ants and Dairies.

it is a fascinating and humorous read though to see how long this nonsense has been perpetuated. great fun!

winner winner chicken dinner. amazing though you even have to spell it out though.

lol/ caz if you hadnt figured out by now i dont give a rats arse about it any more. Im way past being exasperated and frustrated by the whole silly charade and my only interest is in the amusement of it all now. so go ahead and insult away i dont care. just at least try to do with a modicum of humor.

and for the the amount of time youve spent on this thread and this half arsed hoax, you tell me who has "empty days and nights".

I actually gotten to the point I feel sorry for you and your silly band of diary defenders. but dont worry, even bad press is better than none, so carry on!

I'll give it a go, but I'm not sure I have what it takes to get the Abby habit.

Love,

Daffy Oxon-Ffraud
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol.

[Abby Normal]

Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol.

lol. ya think?

funny to see you here WWH. welcome to the nut house. its a nice place to visit but you dont want to live here.
my stay is just about over.

[Abby Normal]

Morning Campers,

Today's posting masterclass comes to us courtesy of Abby Normal, who will be demonstrating how to post here with humour and originality, without the need to insult anyone. Are you sitting comfortably, boys and girls? Then Abby will begin with the first lesson, followed by some recent examples for us to follow:




























I'll give it a go, but I'm not sure I have what it takes to get the Abby habit.

Love,

Daffy Oxon-Ffraud
X

seems ive picked up a stalker : 0

[Iconoclast]

Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol.

Welcome to The Greatest Thread of All, WWH. We haven't met, I don't think. Let me offer you some homely advice, if I may.

It would be easy to be fooled by the hostility towards the Maybrick scrapbook and the Maybrick watch into thinking that we don't take these two artefacts seriously.

Obviously, they don't compare with the plethora of hard evidence which exists against the other candidates for Jack but - if you are willing to look beyond the paucity of evidence - you might find an intriguing case against our erstwhile cotton broker from ever-so likely Liverpool.

Obviously - and I'm at pains to iterate this - you can't compare the scrapbook and the watch against the real evidence (such as the frustrated egotistical musings of ex-senior police in their dotage, or the scribbled marginalia of vain men in a similar state of old age) and that's where the case against Maybrick really falls down.

Who do you favour for Jack (if anyone)? And - if you have such a candidate - what were the key pieces of hard evidence which you feel would convince a jury of their guilt?

My apologies if you are a senile old ex-police officer with an ego the size of a capital city, by the way. Hopefully you're not.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol.

Congratulations, WWH, your post scraped through the Abby Normal 'humour' test by laughing at some imagined joke.

You may need more work on the originality, and you fell down badly on the gratuitous insult count. Include a couple of corkers next time and see your popularity go through the roof.

Love,

Caz
X