One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I say she did it because she had no idea where Mike actually got it from and to take control of the situation she concocted this story so Mike didn’t drag the whole thing down in flames.

Why did she care if it went down in flames? According to Caz Brown she was refusing her royalty checks.

Are you suggesting Caz is wrong, and Anne was actually out to make money off the diary, and her hesitancy to take her royalty checks was just an act?

[The Baron]

Hi Baron--

She gives an 'evil' diary that she has kept hidden since her teenage years to a man she barely knows so he can pass it on to her own iLLiteRAte husband so he can write a fictional story about it before later helping her ILiteRAte husband type up research notes about it when they instead decide to take it to a literary agency for publication.

What is there not to believe?

Nothing, I know people who believe in ghosts, flat earth, aliens, is it much of a stretch to believe some aliens where hiding the diary in their spaceship somewhere outside our solar system, and they brought it back to mother earth after 100 years of penning it as they were asked by Maybrick, maybe Maybrick was the chosen one who was consulting aliens during the killing's spree, and they helped him by watching the streets out at nights, and informing him of the right moment to strike his deeds, maybe the pipe man was just one of those space visitors in disguise..


Who knows, you cannot prove this wrong RJ can you..



The Baron

[erobitha]

Why did she care if it went down in flames? According to Caz Brown she was refusing her royalty checks.

Are you suggesting Caz is wrong, and Anne was actually out to make money off the diary, and her hesitancy to take her royalty checks was just an act?

I have no idea if Anne banked her royalty checks or not. I would be inclined to take Caz's word for it if that was the case.

Motives came in many forms.

[Iconoclast]

It’s like us ‘diary defenders’ are not actually surgically attached at the hip.

In response to Keith’s comments I totally understand as a researcher and historian that Keith is looking through the lens of historical context. I totally respect his desire to acknowledge them for the reasons he wished to acknowledge them.

I do not have to give them any value and I make my own conclusions. I am an aspiring crime fiction writer so I am interested in the story, but I am also interested in the truth.

Technically Keith is right about Anne, her story actually dovetails Mike’s original statement - but that is awfully convenient for Anne’s sake. I don’t buy any of Anne or Mike’s stories at all.

A luxury I can afford more so than others. I am hoping the full truth and paper trail eventually leads to the fact the scrapbook AND watch came from Battlecrease house on the 9th March 1992.

Hi ero b,

Keith had responded to your post but it was later on last Thursday so I'm not sure if the conversation has moved on since:

I never was an historian Erobitha! It's true I am looking through the lens of historical context and perspective
but more often than not I am seeing myself standing there from June 4th 1992 as part of the story and first
hand witness to some of the events.(As with Paul Begg.) I've just been told that the factual errors and
contradictions in Mike's affidavits are because of alcoholism? As a writer of crime fiction, would you run that
line of justification in one of your novels? Might you first of all establish the motive for making the affidavit
and what the expectation was? Seek guidance on what was entailed in swearing an affidavit on oath which
presumably then results in a legal document being created (and paid for) to be used in some sort of legal
proceedings? If it's produced in Court, challenged and falls apart, then would your character explain away the
errors by informing the Judge that there are bound to be some mistakes because his client was an alcholic
whose mind was a mental fog? Would there be any ramifcations from this?

However - no need to respond. Good Luck with the writing.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

Hi ero b,

Keith had responded to your post but it was later on last Thursday so I'm not sure if the conversation has moved on since:

I never was an historian Erobitha! It's true I am looking through the lens of historical context and perspective
but more often than not I am seeing myself standing there from June 4th 1992 as part of the story and first
hand witness to some of the events.(As with Paul Begg.) I've just been told that the factual errors and
contradictions in Mike's affidavits are because of alcoholism? As a writer of crime fiction, would you run that
line of justification in one of your novels? Might you first of all establish the motive for making the affidavit
and what the expectation was? Seek guidance on what was entailed in swearing an affidavit on oath which
presumably then results in a legal document being created (and paid for) to be used in some sort of legal
proceedings? If it's produced in Court, challenged and falls apart, then would your character explain away the
errors by informing the Judge that there are bound to be some mistakes because his client was an alcholic
whose mind was a mental fog? Would there be any ramifcations from this?

However - no need to respond. Good Luck with the writing.

Cheers,

Ike

Apologies for calling Keith a historian

I think we all know RJ's cheeky "it's called alcoholism Keith" was designed to provoke rather than to provide any meaningful insight into how events unfolded and why.

Thanks for best wishes.

[rjpalmer]

I never was an historian Erobitha! It's true I am looking through the lens of historical context and perspective
but more often than not I am seeing myself standing there from June 4th 1992 as part of the story and first
hand witness to some of the events.(As with Paul Begg.) I've just been told that the factual errors and
contradictions in Mike's affidavits are because of alcoholism? As a writer of crime fiction, would you run that
line of justification in one of your novels?

All very droll, but it's increasingly clear that after 25 + years, Keith still hasn't figured out that the year 1990 doesn't come after March 1992, which was the documented purchase date of the red diary and the timeframe that Barrett was discussing. Nothing like sticking with the Korsakov number, eh Keith, when you have documentation that states otherwise? Is that a sound historical method? Don't answer; it's a rhetorical question.

Anyone with sense enough to know that people --let alone people diagnosed with Korsakov's syndrome---sometimes get dates wrong, would probably want to concentrate on the obvious and proven chronology in the affidavit, but who knows? I'm not a doctor, nor a psychologist.

Then again, as late as 1999, Keith was still asking Mike why he had purchased the red diary in May 1992.

Quote: 'What I don’t understand is that the statement that Anne sent me which backs your story beautifully is dated May 1992. May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary.'

You might ask what--or who---led you to that mistaken belief, Keith, and get back to us. Maybe the wrong date that Mike gave isn't quite as important as the wrong date that Anne left lingering in your mind for the better part of five years?

But I'll tell you what. Let's just believe Anne's obvious attempt at gaslighting--May 1992---or the date given by a drunken man-1990 (elsewhere listed as 1991 for those of us who read Lord Orsam's essays) and ignore the actual documented date of these events, as proven by Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder.

That way we'll never have to get around to actually checking the legitimacy of Barrett's affidavit. A sound approach and one that has worked such wonders.

P.S. What statement did Anne send Keith? Presumably the cheque and a written explanation? I've always been under the impression this was a first-hand conversation between Keith and Anne. Was I wrong about that?

[rjpalmer]

Motives came in many forms.

Nothing like keeping it, vague, eh? Feel free to enlighten us. What was Anne's motive for drawing attention to herself when Barrett started confessing? You've already said she wasn't motivated by the truth; now you're suggesting she wasn't motivate by money, either?

What was her motive for moving into the crosshairs? Even Feldman didn't accept she would have done so willingly:





Why did she come forward?

RP

[rjpalmer]

Might you first of all establish the motive for making the affidavit
and what the expectation was? Seek guidance on what was entailed in swearing an affidavit on oath which
presumably then results in a legal document being created (and paid for) to be used in some sort of legal
proceedings? If it's produced in Court, challenged and falls apart, then would your character explain away the
errors by informing the Judge that there are bound to be some mistakes because his client was an alcholic
whose mind was a mental fog? Would there be any ramifcations from this?

The more I read this over, the more curious it appears to me.

Is Keith suggesting the 'motive' of an affidavit must first be established before ascertaining the affidavit's veracity?

Isn't that placing the cart before the horse? WAY before the horse?

As far as I know, Keith hasn't shown that the 5 January 1995 affidavit isn't fundamentally correct; his colleague Caz Brown has just pointed out that some of the dates are wrong. In fact, we know that the purchase of the red diary, as described by Mike Barrett, actually happened. It is real. It is a fact, and it doesn't go away because it happened in March 1992 instead of 1991/1990. The gist of the statement has not been disproven.

And if it the affidavit is fundamentally correct, what difference would Barrett's motive make?

For the sake of argument, let's theorize that Mike's motive was to derail Feldman. Wonderful; but he could have been motivated to derail Feldman with a true confession just as much he could have been motivated to derail Feldman with a false confession, so his motive would tell us nothing whatsoever about the veracity of the affidavit.

Keith seems to be implying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) that if we can determine that Mike's motive was impure, we can then dismiss the affidavit without examining its veracity. Is that the point of this post?

And precisely what 'facts' in Mike's 5 January 1995 affidavit have been proven to be false, other than the obvious errors in dates?

Although I don't think Mike's motive is particularly relevant, if Keith wants to examine the 'motive,' I would point him to two articles on the Orsam Books website, where David B. suggests the 5 January 1995 affidavit had an intended audience of one: Anne Elizabeth Graham.

I found it quite persuasive.

RP

[harry]

Why mention my name,RJ.My arguement on the other thread related to lack of documentary proof,and the fact that prostitute and unfortunate refer to two different types of people.That arguement still stands,why refer to it here.Is it relative? This thread appears to rely heavily on documentary information.I have no intention of getting into arguements about that information,but one observation i will make,is that Trevor has this time,when reffering to affidavits as prime source,been correct.

[rjpalmer]

My apologies, Harry. I was wrong to do so. My point wasn't aimed at you, per se, but rather at Paul. He seemed to have been swayed by Caz Brown's suggestion that the age of the diary remains an open question until the penman is identified, though this was apparently a misunderstanding. It strikes me as a very high bar of evidence indeed, compared to the circumstantial evidence that is generally accepted when debating the occupations of the victims of the East End murderers. I just found it somewhat inconsistent and thought it would get the point across. I'll leave you out of it in the future.

[harry]

Thank you RJ.

[PaulB]

The more I read this over, the more curious it appears to me.

Is Keith suggesting the 'motive' of an affidavit must first be established before ascertaining the affidavit's veracity?

Isn't that placing the cart before the horse? WAY before the horse?

As far as I know, Keith hasn't shown that the 5 January 1995 affidavit isn't fundamentally correct; his colleague Caz Brown has just pointed out that some of the dates are wrong. In fact, we know that the purchase of the red diary, as described by Mike Barrett, actually happened. It is real. It is a fact, and it doesn't go away because it happened in March 1992 instead of 1991/1990. The gist of the statement has not been disproven.

And if it the affidavit is fundamentally correct, what difference would Barrett's motive make?

For the sake of argument, let's theorize that Mike's motive was to derail Feldman. Wonderful; but he could have been motivated to derail Feldman with a true confession just as much he could have been motivated to derail Feldman with a false confession, so his motive would tell us nothing whatsoever about the veracity of the affidavit.

Keith seems to be implying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) that if we can determine that Mike's motive was impure, we can then dismiss the affidavit without examining its veracity. Is that the point of this post?

And precisely what 'facts' in Mike's 5 January 1995 affidavit have been proven to be false, other than the obvious errors in dates?

Although I don't think Mike's motive is particularly relevant, if Keith wants to examine the 'motive,' I would point him to two articles on the Orsam Books website, where David B. suggests the 5 January 1995 affidavit had an intended audience of one: Anne Elizabeth Graham.

I found it quite persuasive.

RP

Roger,
Dipping a toe in waters where angels fear to, er, dip their toes, broadly speaking the motive for writing a document is an important part in assessing its trustworthiness. It is frequently demonstrated or argued that a document had a purpose behind the obvious or stated intent, and, indeed, you indicate that David B. has presented a persuasive argument that this was the case with the affidavit. Of course, whilst the unstated purpose doesn't mean that the content of the document is untrue, there might be another message behind the words which changes our interpretation or understanding of it. Giving consideration to the possible ulterior purpose of a document isn't putting anything way ahead of the horse, it can be an integral and important part of the horse itself.

Are you seriously thinking that Keith would suggest that the affidavit's veracity could or should be dismissed in its entirety just because Mike had an impure motive?

Of course, you may be right that ultimately Mike's purpose in making the affidavit is of little actual relevance, but giving some thought to it doesn't seem all that daft to me. Hasn't Keith explained his thoughts on this matter at some point in the last 25-years?

[PaulB]

My apologies, Harry. I was wrong to do so. My point wasn't aimed at you, per se, but rather at Paul. He seemed to have been swayed by Caz Brown's suggestion that the age of the diary remains an open question until the penman is identified, though this was apparently a misunderstanding. It strikes me as a very high bar of evidence indeed, compared to the circumstantial evidence that is generally accepted when debating the occupations of the victims of the East End murderers. I just found it somewhat inconsistent and thought it would get the point across. I'll leave you out of it in the future.

No, RJ, I hadn't been swayed by anything Caz had said. I thought it was clear that I was questioning and seeking clarification of your reasoning. You said that Caz, Ike, and yourself believed the diary to be an old fake, genuine, and a modern fake respectively, and that you had all done so without identifying the handwriting. You though Caz wanted you to justify your belief by identifying the diary handwriting, and you replied that you were no more necessary for you to do that than it was for Caz to do it. However, as Caz had no idea who the author of the diary was, and as I thought you believed the pen-person was Mike or Ann, your logic seemed awry and I sought clarification. My error was thinking that you thought the pen-person was Mike or Anne, and I did not know or had forgotten that apparently there is some reason for thinking that Anne’s handwriting matches that of the diary. Your error was thinking that Caz believes the diary to be an old fake, wheras she says that she doesn't believe that at all, but believes that nobody has satisfactorilly identified who penned the diary or when. If she thinks you haven't made your case that Mike and Anne created the diary, then it's not unreasonable that she would see the handwriting as a problem for you. As I have said, it's just surprising to me that the facts of what people believe haven't been thrashed out a million times in 25-years and nearly 8,000 posts on this thread alone.

[PaulB]

Why mention my name,RJ.My arguement on the other thread related to lack of documentary proof,and the fact that prostitute and unfortunate refer to two different types of people.That arguement still stands,why refer to it here.Is it relative? This thread appears to rely heavily on documentary information.I have no intention of getting into arguements about that information,but one observation i will make,is that Trevor has this time,when reffering to affidavits as prime source,been correct.

Harry,
Nobody has doubted that the affidavit is a prime source.

I deeply regret that the argument with you on the other thread got out of hand. That was unforgiveable, albeit understandable, so please accept my apologies for that. Just for clarification, and definitely not to open up the argument again, the argument was not about "the lack of documentary proof". I think we're all agreed that documentary proof does not exist. it was about whether the police in 1888 were right to call the victims prostitutes. Hallie Rubenhold's argument is that there is no evidence that they were, and that that was the way the police branded all homeless and destitute women. We know that evidence does support the conclusions of the police and that Rubenhold ignored it. Our understanding of the past almost entirely depends on what the people who lived at that time tell us in the surviving documentation, and that includes the police. The evidence supports what the police said and it has to be examined and its reliability tested by whatever means we have. The evidence is not proof of course, and I don't recall anyone actually arguing that it was, but it does exist. Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to reopen the argument, just trying to clarify it, and apologise for any sharp and never necessary words.

[erobitha]

Harry,
Nobody has doubted that the affidavit is a prime source.

I deeply regret that the argument with you on the other thread got out of hand. That was unforgiveable, albeit understandable, so please accept my apologies for that. Just for clarification, and definitely not to open up the argument again, the argument was not about "the lack of documentary proof". I think we're all agreed that documentary proof does not exist. it was about whether the police in 1888 were right to call the victims prostitutes. Hallie Rubenhold's argument is that there is no evidence that they were, and that that was the way the police branded all homeless and destitute women. We know that evidence does support the conclusions of the police and that Rubenhold ignored it. Our understanding of the past almost entirely depends on what the people who lived at that time tell us in the surviving documentation, and that includes the police. The evidence supports what the police said and it has to be examined and its reliability tested by whatever means we have. The evidence is not proof of course, and I don't recall anyone actually arguing that it was, but it does exist. Anyway, as I said, I am not trying to reopen the argument, just trying to clarify it, and apologise for any sharp and never necessary words.

I know this is off-topic for this thread but having had my own run-ins with Ms. Rubenhold, I would concur that simply to dismiss the police notebooks and other records from the primary source materials on the basis of 'misogyny', is not an acceptable argument for someone claiming to be an academic historian. You don't get to pick and choose what materials make it as source material because you have applied a modern lens to an era that was inherently misogynistic as a whole. It's dishonest.

A crime fiction writer should not be having to tell a historian to look at the primary source materials and include them for what they were, but there you go. Fiction writers get the luxury to cherry pick - academic historians do not.

By the way, sexual transactions did not come with receipts. The only materials we can rely on are primary source. If twenty different primary sources claim they saw a duck and that is recorded, I am willing and inclined to believe, it most likely is very duck-like.