Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hmmm. And how I would love to see him (or anyone else) repeat the feat - at 11 years old, 39 years old (as he would now be), or 100 years old.

    He couldn't do it. No-one could do it. Except, of course, the man who truly felt these words personally and needed these words to understand what he was doing and why he was doing it.

    I - ironically - thank you, James, for keeping your scrapbook and allowing us at long last to solve the mystery of the Jack the Ripper murders.

    The Ike
    I’m looking forward to reading all the pages written by these great writers on this forum. Maybe collectively they could write a prequel “diary”. That would be fun to read. All these amazing experts getting under the skin of a serial killer and composing creative fiction peppered with historical facts - just enough to keep everyone guessing. I’m wondering how they would source and create their scrapbook and source inconclusive ink? Not that any of that matters. They are geniuses they will solve that very easily. Looking forward to reading it. When shall we expect it? How about 9-11 days?
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

      I’m looking forward to reading all the pages written by these great writers on this forum. Maybe collectively they could write a prequel “diary”. That would be fun to read. All these amazing experts getting under the skin of a serial killer and composing creative fiction peppered with historical facts - just enough to keep everyone guessing. I’m wondering how they would source and create their scrapbook and source inconclusive ink? Not that any of that matters. They are geniuses they will solve that very easily. Looking forward to reading it. When shall we expect it? How about 9-11 days?
      Well let's give them long enough to source a genuine Victorian scrapbook, erobitha - so I guess that's any auction coming up any day anywhere.

      I wonder if they could get more initials (or even something else) into the actual crime scene photographs? I think they should if they want to keep up with that bored 11-year old.

      The ink is too easy for words. Just get some Quink from eBay, add sugar, and you've got an authentic ink. I'm not sure how the 11-year old managed to apply his or her ink in such a way that Rod McNeill's (now conveniently much-maligned) ion migration test would give a dating of 1921 plus or minus 11 years, and also how that ink would not betray immediately to McNeill that - dash it! - it was still wet.

      Actually, rather than writing a prequel, perhaps they should demonstrate to us all how incredibly easy this malarkey is by writing it with an entirely new candidate in mind? We could leave it to them to decide who to choose - anyone will do, I suspect (it's that common for people's lives to fit snuggly into that of infamous serial killers, after all), but I think their foil should live no closer to Whitechapel than Liverpool. If they're struggling, let me suggest Robert Louis Stevenson. Edinburgh's pretty handy on the old steam railway, I'm sure.

      Gosh, I'm fair looking forward to this, erobitha. Hey, you don't think these suggestions will drop into a black hole of truly dark matter and never actually come to fruition, do you?

      Perhaps none of the hoaxing-is-soooooo-easy brigade have a free weekend in the next weeks, months, or years, which will tragically deprive us of the confirmation after 28 long years of actually how jolly easy this hoaxing-is-sooooooo-easy truly is?

      Or perhaps none of those weekends will be wet enough?

      Ike
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post


        In my opinion the 'diary' is a c. 1989 - 1990 concoction and really not worth wasting time on.

        My opinion was reached after being involved at the time it appeared, spending much time in Feldman's office back in 1993/4, personally knowing the majority of those involved in its propagation, amassing much documentation on it, including many private letters (most of which information has never been published) &c., &c. So I doubt I shall be persuaded to change that opinion by anyone.



        This testimony is from Stewart P Evans!


        What was your name again?!



        The Baron

        Comment


        • I can't remember in which thread Katnip was posting examples of Anne Barrett's handwriting (from Lord Orsam's OP), but I'm intrigued to find that there is a full page of Anne's handwriting depicted in The Inside Story. At the risk of being sued over copyright, here it is (page 177, by the way). It just doesn't look anything like the writing in the scrapbook to me, but maybe I'm biased?

          Ike

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Anne Barrett Handwriting 2.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	159.2 KB
ID:	739849
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            I can't remember in which thread Katnip was posting examples of Anne Barrett's handwriting (from Lord Orsam's OP), but I'm intrigued to find that there is a full page of Anne's handwriting depicted in The Inside Story. At the risk of being sued over copyright, here it is (page 177, by the way). It just doesn't look anything like the writing in the scrapbook to me, but maybe I'm biased?

            Ike

            Click image for larger version

Name:	Anne Barrett Handwriting 2.jpg
Views:	140
Size:	159.2 KB
ID:	739849
            Hi Ike,

            In the interest of fairness, the samples provided by Anne on request, as posted above are noteably different to the samples Orsam acquired, which are private and personal letters to Mike. Given that Jim's diary relies on the difference between private and public writing, it might be wise to tread lightly here.

            Like Kattrup posted, it seems that disproving Mike's handwriting doesn't require an expert, but disproving Anne's does, which hasn't been done. Well, not her private correspondence anyhow.

            How that relates to everything else? I guess we'll debate that. But don't rely on those samples in "inside story", which pre date the disclosure of the private correspondence.
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
              This testimony is from Stewart P Evans!
              What was your name again?!
              The Baron
              My Dear The Baron,

              Although he (Stewart) posted this many years ago, I actually remember it well. I remember thinking at the time that he came across like someone who had stumbled across an incident and was happy to stand around and tell all-comers all about something he hadn't actually seen. “You haven’t heard the best of it yet!”, et cetera. So he was in the cast but never quite made it into the credits. Hardly makes him the voice of eternal truth on this matter.

              It is clear that you are plucking convenient gems from the plethora here in this, The Greatest Thread of All, and I suspect you aren’t going to stop with Mr Evans so I’m sure there will be more to come. Anyway, last time Keith Skinner emailed me he made the rather enormous mistake of putting his ‘phone number on his email (send me a tenner and I’ll let you have it) so I decided to ring him up (seriously – no wind up) because he and Stewart have co-authored at least a couple of books to my recollection since the diary was published (I have The Ultimate Jack the Spratt McVitie Sourcebook in front of me on my Ripper shelf as I type, and Jack the Spratt McVitie: Letters from Hell too, I note) and so I figured Keith would know the truth of Stewart’s unique insight into the Maybrick scrapbook which he strongly implied in the post you quoted him from and therefore what involvement Stewart had actually had with the scrapbook. Figured he’d be pruning the hydrangeas (goodness, I appear to have spelled that correctly) if I’m honest (or watching the snooker) so thought I’d have to leave a message on his answerphone. But he picked the ‘phone up! We had a long chat, and although he said he’d get the police on me if I rang again, I made a load of notes, from which I more or less copy verbatim, below.

              From my notes:
              • Keith laughed when I mentioned the books he had co-authored with Stewart – said it was a huge privilege to have his name on a book with Stewart especially as Stewart did about 80% of the work!
              • Keith just added a few bits of research here and there. Keith describes himself as the “Tart of Ripperology” who will climb between anyone’s covers to get his name on the cover!
              • Has known Stewart for about 40 years.
              • Stewart quite understandably felt very bitter towards the diary because it eclipsed his tremendous find of the Littlechild Letter.
              • Keith was first person Stewart told about the letter and Keith was disappointed he could not work on it with Stewart, as he was already commissioned to help out with the research on the diary.
              • Stewart’s venom was not really towards the diary but towards Paul Feldman because, had Feldman not got involved with the diary, Stewart’s book on Tumblety would probably have become a best seller and attracted much publicity.
              • The film rights might even have been sold.
              • Keith knows about Stewart’s visits to Feldman’s office – he was there on a couple of those occasions.
              • Keith has often read that Stewart heard Feldman changing the provenance of the diary over the telephone whilst Stewart was in the office or within hearing.
              • Keith witnessed hundreds of those Feldman type conversations which usually reduced down to Feldman trying to persuade somebody of his latest theory by running it past them as if it was fact.
              • Feldman’s office was a breeding ground for the unwary unused to Feldman’s dogmatic type of discussion, which generally meant the other person never got a word in.
              • (Paul Begg and Martin Fido were the recipients of quite a few of these monologues.)
              • If Feldman conclusively knew the diary was a fake he would not be so indiscreet as to blurt this out over the telephone with Stewart (a retired police officer) standing there.
              • Neither would Feldman have been pouring money into research trying to prove JM was JtR.
              • But the greater point is this, Stewart would have told Keith (as a close friend) that Feldman was conning people – and Keith would have challenged Feldman and finished with him if Stewart was correct.
              • The even greater point is what would Stewart have thought of Keith if he (Keith) knew the diary was a modern creation and continued working for Feldman?
              • Is that the sort of person he would want to continue his friendship with and invite to be his co-author?
              • But perhaps the greatest point of all was what would Keith think of himself?
              • That is why he (Keith) does not believe Stewart is holding back any material evidence to protect Keith. (If, that is, he is the close friend Stewart has intimated he is protecting.)
              • Rather like Groucho Marx refusing to be a member of any club that would have him [LOL!], Keith said he would not want himself as a friend if he treated Stewart with such contempt.
              • Keith respects Stewart’s opinion and would not seek to try and change it, knowing its genesis.
              • He only regrets that Stewart has never examined the diary for himself. [Ike: You wouldn’t think so!]
              • Somewhat inexplicably [from my perspective], Keith understands from Stewart that he has burned all of the unpublished material which pointed towards the diary being a modern hoax.
              • [Ike: Why on earth would someone burn material which proved such a point?]
              End of my notes

              For the record, prior to stumbling across Feldman’s video in about 1998 on TV, I had Tumblety down as the strongest candidate for Jack and I really thought Stewart had cracked it. Feldman’s video was a revelation, and the rest is … well, you know.

              I think that we can see that Stewart is probably unable to add any concrete evidence now to back up his views on the scrapbook and I wonder – with this in mind – whether we should desist in using such hearsay as some sort of measure of authenticity or hoax?

              PS Do I get a Researcher of Merit badge for this, my latest brilliant post?

              Ike
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                Hi Ike,

                In the interest of fairness, the samples provided by Anne on request, as posted above are noteably different to the samples Orsam acquired, which are private and personal letters to Mike. Given that Jim's diary relies on the difference between private and public writing, it might be wise to tread lightly here.

                Like Kattrup posted, it seems that disproving Mike's handwriting doesn't require an expert, but disproving Anne's does, which hasn't been done. Well, not her private correspondence anyhow.

                How that relates to everything else? I guess we'll debate that. But don't rely on those samples in "inside story", which pre date the disclosure of the private correspondence.
                Fair enough, Abe. You make a good point (as ever!).

                I can't keep asking Keith Skinner for clarification (his people are already talking to my people about a Cease and Desist order) but I have to assume that Anne didn't get much warning when asked to write what she wrote. Of course, it's still public (as you correctly note) but I wonder if the lack of prep time caused her writing to be less contrived (contrived as in "structured for public consumption")?

                Anyway, your point is valid ...

                Ike
                Last edited by Iconoclast; 08-16-2020, 06:42 PM.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  Fair enough, Abe. You make a good point (as ever!).

                  I can't keep asking Keith Skinner for clarification (his people are already talking to my people about a Cease and Desist order) but I have to assume that Anne didn't get much warning when asked to write what she wrote. Of course, it's still public (as you correctly note) but I wonder if the lack of prep time caused her writing to be less contrived (contrived as in "structured for public consumption")?

                  Anyway, your point is valid ...

                  Ike
                  I reckon that dialogue is getting into the next "Lord Orsam's Blog" I can't wait. But it's "likely bullshit".

                  Thems the Vagaries.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    • Stewart’s venom was not really towards the diary but towards Paul Feldman because, had Feldman not got involved with the diary, Stewart’s book on Tumblety would probably have become a best seller and attracted much publicity.
                    • The film rights might even have been sold.

                    So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!


                    And a couple of days earlier you were complaining :

                    I cannot lie, however. The accusations of being a troll and a wind-up merchant are infuriating.


                    Duality of standards.


                    We all know who Stewart is, and who you are.



                    The Baron
                    Last edited by The Baron; 08-16-2020, 09:59 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                      So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!
                      And a couble of days earlier you were complaining.
                      I cannot lie, however. The accusations of being a troll and a wind-up merchant are infuriating.
                      Duality of standards.
                      We all know who Stewart is, and who you are.
                      The Baron
                      Well if everyone knows who I am, why on earth are you making such a drama of it, buddy?

                      I've done my time. I've served my penalty. I'm a free man now. Wisconsin can't hold me. Arkansas, that was a breeze. Those bikers deserved to die. They say I took out 40 of them before they downed me. Even then they couldn't finish me off. I did twenty years for that. Talk about miscarriage of justice.

                      Yes, I know that was a load of random bollocks, but - in fairness - you started it.
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                        I've done my time. I've served my penalty. I'm a free man now. Wisconsin can't hold me. Arkansas, that was a breeze. Those bikers deserved to die. They say I took out 40 of them before they downed me. Even then they couldn't finish me off. I did twenty years for that. Talk about miscarriage of justice.

                        Babbling of a drowned man.



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                          So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!


                          And a couple of days earlier you were complaining :

                          I cannot lie, however. The accusations of being a troll and a wind-up merchant are infuriating.


                          Duality of standards.


                          We all know who Stewart is, and who you are.



                          The Baron
                          Yes he is basically calling Stewart P Evans a liar.

                          Yes it's double standards.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                            Yes he is basically calling Stewart P Evans a liar.

                            Yes it's double standards.
                            Read my email.
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                              Read my email.
                              Just for my on sanity Ike, can you confirm that the post shared by The Barret with regards to Stewart Evans was from 6 years ago? I thought for a second it was a recent post.
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                So you are accusing Stewart P Evans of being dishonest in his refusal of the scrapbook because it prevented him of getting the publicity and the extra cash he was willing to?!
                                The Baron
                                Okay, I will humour you. If you could write it in a way that is crystal clear, I would be crystal clear about what you are accusing me of accusing Stewart of.
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X