One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kaz]

How the mindsets would be if Anne did things differently?
Because mike got his grubby prints all over the journal its fallen at the first hurdle??

I'm amazed that all these professionals STILL can't shake it! Why is that exactly?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

How the mindsets would be if Anne did things differently?
Because mike got his grubby prints all over the journal its fallen at the first hurdle??

I'm amazed that all these professionals STILL can't shake it! Why is that exactly?

Anne is a false lead in all this. Listening to her was Feldman's fatal mistake. You can say what you want about Feldman, but he was a Believer with a capital B. Mike Barrett clearly has mental issues, but she is simply a liar.

[Kaz]

Anne is a false lead in all this. Listening to her was Feldman's fatal mistake. You can say what you want about Feldman, but he was a Believer with a capital B. Mike Barrett clearly has mental issues, but she is simply a liar.

See this where the likes of me hit a brick wall. What exactly do I believe?

[caz]

Hi Kaz,

I think what Sir Robert is trying to say is that we all know Anne lied at least once, either in 1992 when she said she knew nothing about the diary's origins, or in 1994 when she gave her 'in the family' account.

We can't trust anything Mike has claimed about the diary's origins.

But none of this tells us a thing about the actual age of the writing in that damned book.

It's so easy for people to believe it was written in the late 80s because of what Mike said. And even intelligent people like things easy.

For some of us, our enquiring minds want more than this, whether we think the diary has any relevance to the ripper case or we are absolutely certain it hasn't. I am pretty sure it hasn't, but my interest lies in the kind of person who would create such a thing and for what purpose. Coming out of the right house, but in totally the wrong handwriting, and Mike refusing the perfect provenance for it, only adds to the mystery for me. And yet, Phil H eagerly grasps the wrong end of the stick by talking about my interest in this (quite obviously) 'unproven' document as some kind of 'act of faith' on my part.

It would be annoying if it wasn't such a wonderful demonstration of another wrong, but 'easy' assumption being made.

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hi Kaz,

I think what Sir Robert is trying to say is that we all know Anne lied at least once, either in 1992 when she said she knew nothing about the diary's origins, or in 1994 when she gave her 'in the family' account.

Thank you once again Caz for making clear what I was trying to say in a more verbose manner. I was thinking more along the lines of the 1994 nonsense, but 1992 will work for me as well !

[caz]

Caz, didn't the Blessed Michael Barratt receive royalties amounting to a scouser arm-and-a-leg, and blow the lot on wine, women and chips?

Hi Graham,

Something like that, yes.

But it's worth remembering that no sooner had the scally's beer tokens started rolling in than he claimed he had written the 'cash cow' himself, immediately pissing on his own cornflakes and stemming the royalty flow.

And people still think he was confessing voluntarily to a crime for real.

He's from Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...Keith Skinner...says he has gotten to the bottom of the story...

Not the whole story though, Sir R. I frankly doubt he has any more idea than Phil H has who created the diary or why, and how it got into the right house.

What you and Keith and I have in common is that we would like to have the answers before we claim to know them. Opinions and beliefs are fine and quite another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The truth is that the Diary... probably hastened the demise of Feldman and Harris...

I think you left out a word there.

The truth is that Ripper Diary... probably hastened the demise of Feldman and Harris...

I'm not saying that it prompted Feldy to fake his own death or anything (that's another story to give anyone nightmares) but he was prompted to remark that our book would probably put him "six feet under".

So it wasn't only Melvin who was hopping mad about wot we wrote.

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

he was prompted to remark that our book would probably put him "six feet under".

So it wasn't only Melvin who was hopping mad about wot we wrote.

You know you are doing the right thing when you enrage two parties holding irreconcilable and opposing viewpoints.

But I do believe in my heart of hearts that the Diary controversy and the way the two of them went at it didn't help their health issues, which is why my JTRForums sig is "Paul Feldman - the sixth Canonical" . It's only part in jest.

If I was the superstitious type I'd say the infernal thing is just plain bad mojo.

[Phil H]

And the anti-Diarists have a visceral hatred of the damn thing that I fail to understand.

Well, for my part I have nothing at all for or against the diary. To me it has no standing, remains a fake until proven otherwise, and smells to my nose of the same odour that exhuded from the Hitler diaries.

It seems to me that it is those who are so adamantly FOR the diary that are acting viscerally.

Surely the academic, the scholarly and the sensible approach, is to have no view until there is proof. The fact is the diary was presented as a fait accompli and some of us responded as might be expected, adversely - TO ITS PRESENTATION.

Sorry, the fakeness (ink apart) lies in the fact that it is highly unlikely Maybrick wrote it - people don't usually adopt a totally dissimilar style of handwriting to that they usually use; and from internal evidence that it offers nothing new, nothing provable or verifiable. It cleverly skates around its subject using only researchable evidence. It has no provenance, no contuinuous chain of evidence, and to be honest even if it were shown to have emerged from Battlecrease House, I'd still ask how it got there.

Those responsible for it from its miraculous revelation have muddied the waters with their own inconsistencies, and allegations of forgery.

Those who support the "diaries" legitimacy have, I'm afraid, a steep hill to climb. Frankly I doubt they ever will.

But "visceral hatred" - no I don't feel that. But I am cynical. And I'm also annoyed at the distraction to Ripper studies the diary has been since it emerged, and angry at the way it has brought ridicule on the field which, around the late 80s was staring to gain some reputability through the work of men like Fido, Begg, Skinner et al.

Phil

[caz]

If I was the superstitious type I'd say the infernal thing is just plain bad mojo.

Hi Sir Robert,

I've often felt that those of us who allow the 'diary' to enter our lives and occupy our thoughts, can be roughly divided into two groups: those who end up 'touched' by it in some very negative ways, and those who remain untouched and immune to its deliberate mischief. Let's face it, it wasn't created to spread sunshine.

Maybe it's something to do with the glass-half-full v glass-half-empty thing, and how healthy and positive our mental attitude is to life and the good in others. But there's no denying the power this inanimate object has over some people, to bring out their sad, mad or bad side.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It seems to me that it is those who are so adamantly FOR the diary that are acting viscerally.

Yeah, and there are SO many of them, we can't get a word in edgeways for the dozens of adamant diary believers around here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Surely the academic, the scholarly and the sensible approach, is to have no view until there is proof.

Tell that to all the modern hoax believers, Phil.

Not one of those, are you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...and to be honest even if it were shown to have emerged from Battlecrease House, I'd still ask how it got there.

I assumed you were being honest before this.

Of course you'd have to ask 'how it got there'. I've been asking myself that and will still be asking unless the answer is found - by someone with a keener nose than yours or mine.

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

And I'm also annoyed at the distraction to Ripper studies the diary has been since it emerged, and angry at the way it has brought ridicule on the field which, around the late 80s was staring to gain some reputability through the work of men like Fido, Begg, Skinner et al.

Phil

Honestly, I think it's a sidebar to Ripper research. Some enjoy it; most ignore it. I don't see it holding anyone back from perusing whatever research strikes their fancy. I will tell you why I am more interested in the hunt for who wrote the Diary versus whether we can see Kelly's pubes in various blow ups of the crime scene: it's relatively sterile. No guts protruding, no knives cutting throats. Just a "whodunnit". The Watch in particular fascinates me.

And as far as respectability, I think you have only to read the various flame wars that break out here and at the Forums to see why John Q. Public thinks we're just a bunch of nutters. We had a thread at the Forums where several "researchers" maintained that Stride (and possibly the others) was in fact a secret agent spying on anarchists when she met her fate. We can't pin all this on Maybrick.