One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Perhaps I would have answers if I read the book, but the question I would then ask myself is why should i believe what the writers have written in the book ?

Absolutely right, Trev. Why should you? You go on believing whatever makes you happy and stick to comics.

and can you hand on heart still say that what is written in the book has stood the test of time, and that no one has been able to negate what is contained in the book?

Pretty much Trev, apart from the odd typo I let slip through, and the odd continuity error, which naturally David Barrat and his biggest fans have jumped all over with unbridled glee. The book is based on what others had to say - as many commentators as possible from both sides or neutral - during the first ten years since the diary and watch emerged. As such, their statements remain what they were then. We could not be responsible if some of their stories or opinions have changed since the book came out. But they would still only be their stories and opinions. The authors reached no conclusions ourselves about the diary's true origins, because that was not what the book was about, and in any case we genuinely didn't know and had no proof of where the scrapbook came from or when.

If anyone reading this has that proof, and is holding onto it, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If the book contains information you don't have, and if you check it out and it proves correct, who can say how it might alter your thinking on the "diary"? Maybe it won't change your thinking at all, but you won't know until you read the book.

One book containing information Trevor doesn't have, which would improve the way he expresses his thoughts on other books he hasn't read, might be a dictionary.

But he's in good company, because it's very clear that the diary author didn't bother to consult one either, when supposedly wanting it to be seen and admired by the world and his wife.

I look up relatively simple words obsessively before posting anything for public consumption. But each to their own.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

One book containing information Trevor doesn't have, which would improve the way he expresses his thoughts on other books he hasn't read, might be a dictionary.

Honestly, Caz, you crack me up!

But he's in good company, because it's very clear that the diary author didn't bother to consult one either, when supposedly wanting it to be seen and admired by the world and his wife.

Hold on. Surely you're not thinking what I'm thinking? Is it possible? All these years we've been conned by Trevor Marriott himself?

I look up relatively simple words obsessively before posting anything for public consumption. But each to their own.

I am rather fond of those red squiggly lines you often get in software programs which help you to look like you've got the first idea how to spell affyDavid.

On a serious note, Trevor really should watch the line he's crossing here with these accusations. The implication is clear - he thinks the three of you made stuff up and then published it. It's a shocking claim and I'm very surprised no other posters have called him out on it, so I will.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps I would have answers if I read the book, but the question I would then ask myself is why should i believe what the writers have written in the book ?

and can you hand on heart still say that what is written in the book has stood the test of time, and that no one has been able to negate what is contained in the book?

Trevor,

It is one thing to question the validity of published material but quite another to question the integrity of it. I read your first line as a clear statement that Skinner, Linder, and Brown published material for which there was no evidential source. It reads like you are accusing them of making content up.

You need to clarify what you meant by this comment, please.

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

If the book contains information you don't have, and if you check it out and it proves correct, who can say how it might alter your thinking on the "diary"? Maybe it won't change your thinking at all, but you won't know until you read the book.

My thinking on the diary is not going to change any time soon unless anyone come up with some conclusive proof to show Barrett was not involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary.

Has the contents of book in question been accepted without question, or have researchers identifed flaws in its content which make it unsafe.

If I recall Lord Orsam did just that and took her to task over the contents. Of Course Caz being Caz in her inimitable way ducked and dived to retain her status quo on the book and its contents.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[barnflatwyngarde]

Ok, you folks win!

I have ordered a copy of "The Ripper Diary: The Inside Story".
I read it years ago, but it's time to jump into the maelstrom again.

When I have re-read the book, I will be back to champion the diary, or conclusively damn it as a hoax!

Or quite possibly nothing much will have changed.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Trevor,

It is one thing to question the validity of published material but quite another to question the integrity of it. I read your first line as a clear statement that Skinner, Linder, and Brown published material for which there was no evidential source. It reads like you are accusing them of making content up.

You need to clarify what you meant by this comment, please.

Ike

With the greatest respect Ike, I didn't take Trevor's post as insinuating that the authors made anything up.

I read it as that he just doesn't believe their "take" on the case.

[Iconoclast]

With the greatest respect Ike, I didn't take Trevor's post as insinuating that the authors made anything up.

I read it as that he just doesn't believe their "take" on the case.

Well that may well be the case, barney, but I'd like to hear it from Trevor's keyboard.

You'll enjoy the book - it's a dispassionate review of what was known by 2003. I don't think you'll come away thinking "Those scurrilous curs - they've lied and twisted and made stuff up to protect this diary from being revealed for the fake it is". If you do, I strongly suggest that you resign from the Casebook in dramatic fashion and then start your own website - ideally using an idiosyncratic form of presentation where you only use 7.65% of the screen and the rest is irrelevant wallpaper (a view which can apparently be increased by removing the back of your laptop, giving the motherboard a deep clean, adding 64gb of RAM, and deconstructing the assembly code for HTML to create a new language which I suggest you call 'Orsam').

By the way, we used to go on caravan holidays every year in the 1960s up to Scotland (same place) and I always rode on a donkey called Barney. Small world, isn't it?

Ike

[barnflatwyngarde]

Well that may well be the case, barney, but I'd like to hear it from Trevor's keyboard.

You'll enjoy the book - it's a dispassionate review of what was known by 2003. I don't think you'll come away thinking "Those scurrilous curs - they've lied and twisted and made stuff up to protect this diary from being revealed for the fake it is". If you do, I strongly suggest that you resign from the Casebook in dramatic fashion and then start your own website - ideally using an idiosyncratic form of presentation where you only use 7.65% of the screen and the rest is irrelevant wallpaper (a view which can apparently be increased by removing the back of your laptop, giving the motherboard a deep clean, adding 64gb of RAM, and deconstructing the assembly code for HTML to create a new language which I suggest you call 'Orsam').

By the way, we used to go on caravan holidays every year in the 1960s up to Scotland (same place) and I always rode on a donkey called Barney. Small world, isn't it?

Ike

Cheers Ike!

I am looking forward to reading the book again, in truth I can't remember much about it, so I'll be approaching it with an open mind.

I might post my overall thoughts on the book, and the points raised in it, when I've read it, but I think that you guys are way ahead of me in terms of understanding all the subtle, and none too subtle, elements of the book.

Caravan holidays every year in Scotland?

You are a lucky man.

[Iconoclast]

Caravan holidays every year in Scotland?

You are a lucky man.

Amazingly enough, it actually went downhill from there. One year we went to a site in Mablethorpe - thirty of us enduring two weeks of rain and nowt to do all because some idiot had asked Uncle Jack where he'd like to go (and he chose Mablethorpe "because I was stationed there during the war").

[Iconoclast]

Has the contents of book in question been accepted without question, or have researchers identifed flaws in its content which make it unsafe.

If I recall Lord Orsam did just that and took her to task over the contents. Of Course Caz being Caz in her inimitable way ducked and dived to retain her status quo on the book and its contents.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If I recall, Orsam spotted a continuity error, the misspelling of 'fish', a dropped bus pass, and how to shine brass using Coca Cola. I don't think he eviscerated one of the most significant books in the stable of Ripper Diary tomes. Except in his mind, of course.

Seriously Trevor, if you read stuff, you'll know for sure and not have to rely on vague inference from posts here on the Casebook.

I still think you should clarify if you were accusing the three authors of subterfuge and mendacity.

www.answerthebloodyquestionforgoodnesssaketrevor.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

I might post my overall thoughts on the book, and the points raised in it, when I've read it, but I think that you guys are way ahead of me in terms of understanding all the subtle, and none too subtle, elements of the book.

Barney, please post your thoughts on the book - I don't know the three amigos but I can imagine that having written a book on a subject, getting useful feedback (even 18 years later) is probably really interesting and beneficial for them.

You never know, there may come a day when your thoughts inspire them to re-work Inside Story.

Here's a thought: Inside Story II: Inside the Inside Story by Linder, Brown, Skinner, Bitha, and Iconoclast, a page-turning tale of all the evidence which has mounted-up over the last two decades showing that Mike Barrett wrote the Victorian scrapbook along with help from Tony Devereux, Anne Graham, Caroline Barrett, Robert Smith, Bob from The Saddle, Dale Winton, and Henry Belafonte and how the three amigos successfully shifted the evidence from word prosser straight into the bin.

It'll be a blockbuster!

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Trevor -- From Stephen Ryder's review of Ripper Diary:

"Linder, Morris and Skinner admirably show no direct support for either side of the argument, but it becomes abundantly clear after only a few pages that their collective compass tilts ever so slightly toward the pro-diary claimants."

I think 'ever so slightly' was diplomacy on Stephen's part—he’s a nice guy. Similarly, the Leaning Tower of Pisa tilts ever so slightly, as does a sapling in a strong wind.

And what direction were the authors tilting? Towards the belief that Anne Graham’s claim of having owned the diary since the late 1960s was utterly true, as confirmed by Billy Graham’s account of having been given the diary years earlier.

Beliefs that two of the authors have now completed abandoned, and, at times, violently argue against--- by implication, at least--as they now argue that the diary really came out Battlecrease in 1992!

Confused yet?

Changing horse in midstream is their choice, obviously, but if they now acknowledge that they were so utterly wrong the first go round, why should you believe they have it right now?

Similarly, I had to chuckle at a paragraph in Society's Pillar, where Ike gloats that the diary has TWO excellent provenances!

It's like the bank robber who boasted that he has two excellent alibis. At the time of the robbery, he was next door at the bowling alley AND visiting his grandmother across town.

[The Baron]

I had to chuckle at a paragraph in Society's Pillar, where Ike gloats that the diary has TWO excellent provenances!

It's like the bank robber who boasted that he has two excellent alibis. At the time of the robbery, he was next door at the bowling alley AND visiting his grandmother across town.

Hilarious RJ!





The Baron

[PaulB]

My thinking on the diary is not going to change any time soon unless anyone come up with some conclusive proof to show Barrett was not involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary.

Has the contents of book in question been accepted without question, or have researchers identifed flaws in its content which make it unsafe.

If I recall Lord Orsam did just that and took her to task over the contents. Of Course Caz being Caz in her inimitable way ducked and dived to retain her status quo on the book and its contents.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have the contents of the book been accepted without question? I very much doubt it, don't you?
Have flaws been identified that make the book unsafe? I don't know. I expect they have, what book doesn't have errors. I bet if somebody went through your books with a fine-tooth comb they'd find all manner of errors too. It probably goes with the territory. But is it safe to rely on the conclusions of others? Shouldn't you go through the book for yourself and reach your own conclusions?
Maybe Caz did duck and dive, or maybe Lord Orsam was slightly off kilter with his assessments and she corrected him? How do you know if you haven't read the book for yourself.

I was taught that one should try to be acquainted with as much source material as one can before drawing conclusions. The book in question isn't just any old title, but was an attempt to give an honest account of the facts surrounding the "diary". Whether it is or not is probably something you should decide for yourself, don't you think? Just an observation.