One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

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

You and me both. But even I know you can only ever prove something that is true to begin with. But try telling that to the people who whinge about the absence of a single test proving the diary and watch to be recent fakes.

If you are annoyed at the 'distraction' caused by the diary, don't add to it by posting stuff here that requires to be addressed in the name of accuracy if not sanity. The diary threads were ghostly quiet for ages until you arrived. And please don't speak for Martin, Paul or Keith. All three were more than happy to offer Shirley Harrison their help and advice when the thing first emerged, and whatever their views on its true origins (all three believe it's a fake), they would never accuse Shirley or her associates of bringing ridicule on the field.

Did you know that you would probably not have had a casebook to post your views on if it wasn't for the diary? At least, not the casebook as we know and love it.

Love,

Caz
X

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I am in total agreement with Sir Robert Anderson.
I am intrested and fasinated by every aspect of JTR, and that includes the Diary.
I have said before that it is a great mystery by it's self and if JTR is ever finally named, then we got something else to debate, unless of course Maybrick was the named felon as Soothsayer once pointed out to me.
And where is old Soothache when you need him ?

[Scott Nelson]

Was George Grossmith ever a guest at Battlecrease?

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Was George Grossmith ever a guest at Battlecrease?

Now THAT is a damn good question.

Don't forget that the house was open for touring after Flo's conviction.

[caz]

Hi Scotty,

I don't know, but he did spend his honeymoon in Aigburth (doesn't everyone?) so his ears presumably pricked up when the place became infamous for murder most foul and controversial.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

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

Anne's admitted intial lie was understandable.
But why is the family connection not to be believed exactly?
Caz, have you heard the recording made by feldman of her fathers account?

[caz]

Anne's admitted intial lie was understandable.
But why is the family connection not to be believed exactly?
Caz, have you heard the recording made by feldman of her fathers account?

Hi Kaz,

I'm not sure it was completely understandable for Anne to say she knew nothing when signing her agreement to the diary being investigated with a view to publication. It's fairly obvious that provenance would be a crucial issue, so if she was sitting there with a nice juicy family connection, that was the right time to say something, not two years down the line, a month after Mike had claimed to have written it himself!

Her explanation was that she was trying to do Mike a favour without him knowing that the diary had come from her, which may sound fair enough, except that the story Mike was left to tell, about his dead mate giving it to him without a word about where it came from, did him no favours at all.

I can't recall if I have heard that particular recording - there were so many! But the alleged family connection (between Anne and Florie?) has no documentary support as far as I know, and it would appear to be incompatible with the alleged, and equally unsupported 'oral' tradition that Granny Formby knew Nurse Yapp and got the diary from her. I'm not sure Feldy knew what was going on, but it's entirely possible that Anne's father only had a slim grasp himself, considering how old and frail he was at the time. I know that my own father, who died aged 84, thought I was his mother in his final few months!

We do know that Mike got it into his head that Feldy was hellbent on relating Anne back to James, because he was absolutely furious about it, imagining that the world would believe his daughter was descended from Jack the Ripper. Maybe he thought confessing to forgery was the better option, I don't know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

Hi Kaz,

I'm not sure it was completely understandable for Anne to say she knew nothing when signing her agreement to the diary being investigated with a view to publication. It's fairly obvious that provenance would be a crucial issue, so if she was sitting there with a nice juicy family connection, that was the right time to say something, not two years down the line, a month after Mike had claimed to have written it himself!

Her explanation was that she was trying to do Mike a favour without him knowing that the diary had come from her, which may sound fair enough, except that the story Mike was left to tell, about his dead mate giving it to him without a word about where it came from, did him no favours at all.

I can't recall if I have heard that particular recording - there were so many! But the alleged family connection (between Anne and Florie?) has no documentary support as far as I know, and it would appear to be incompatible with the alleged, and equally unsupported 'oral' tradition that Granny Formby knew Nurse Yapp and got the diary from her. I'm not sure Feldy knew what was going on, but it's entirely possible that Anne's father only had a slim grasp himself, considering how old and frail he was at the time. I know that my own father, who died aged 84, thought I was his mother in his final few months!

We do know that Mike got it into his head that Feldy was hellbent on relating Anne back to James, because he was absolutely furious about it, imagining that the world would believe his daughter was descended from Jack the Ripper. Maybe he thought confessing to forgery was the better option, I don't know.

Love,

Caz
X

At the beginning Anne didn't want the journal published, she almost threw it in the fire when mike started the ball rolling.

Just because certain people live and behave in a certain way shouldn't strengthen the argument for the Diary being a hoax.

[caz]

I'd agree with you if you were to insert the word 'modern' between 'a' and 'hoax'.

I don't believe for one second that Mike or Anne were involved in creating a hoax, or knew anything about who did create this document, when or why.

So I don't believe the way they lived or behaved can reveal the answers to these questions.

But what strengthens or weakens an argument is a personal judgement, and others will diasgree with us on that score.

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

At the beginning Anne didn't want the journal published, she almost threw it in the fire when mike started the ball rolling.

Let me state at the outcome that I don't know Keith Skinner, and have never spoken to him or anyone that might know what he believes he can prove. All I have ever done is reverse engineer his statements. I don't want to imply I have "inside" knowledge, because if I did, I'd keep my mouth shut. But since I am speculating, I feel free to roam around.

So.....to reiterate: I said earlier that Keith's jury remark might imply the Diary was stolen from Battlecrease. We have the document popping up in Barrett's claws, and we know that at one point he was a scrap metal dealer. So I put two and two together and think I can see a scenario where he winds up with the Diary. IF Anne knows the truth about how he came by the Diary, she might have felt Mike was opening them up to legal trouble by trying to sell it as it was stolen property. So perhaps she indeed threatened to destroy it. Perhaps she said to Mike copy it if you can and see what you can do with that but whip the original out and we might have some 'plaining to do to the coppers.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Just a guess but one that at least explains people's actions in a semi-sane way.

And speaking of sanity....If you are a modern day forger, how foolish do you have to be to allow the Watch and the Diary to be separated and pop up in public at different times ? Talk about undermining your credibility. (Yeah yeah yeah I know - the forgers were idiots and it's all quite obvious even to a child so the question is stupidity personified. You can cram that where the sun don't shine.)

So if the Diary was stolen, was the Watch stolen as well ? And if so, why didn't it wind up with Barrett as well ?

Just asking.

Just because certain people live and behave in a certain way shouldn't strengthen the argument for the Diary being a hoax.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Although I must admit that Albert Johnson's actions and behavior over the years did lend a great deal of credibility in my eyes to his story of how he acquired the Watch.

[Phil H]

Sir Robert

With respect, and I recognise your loyalty to this artifact, your last post constituted nothing but special pleading and unreasoned dismissal of the views of others.

There was not one thing there that was relevant to the authenticity of the diary (as a product of the genuine JtR) or that would convince an outsider.

Sorry to be so blunt,

Phil

[harry]

As Phil has pointed out,each link in the chain of ownership has to be proven by evidence.The weakest links are who owned or was in possession of the diary before Barrett,and who passed to Barrett,and how.So far there have been lies.

I do not know Keith Skinner.It is now more than two years?since he announced himself as the bringer of good tidings regarding the object,and not one glimmer,to the masses,of what those tidings are.One thing is obvious,Barrett must come into the reckoning,he cannot be sidestepped,and Barrett is,on past record,not an ideal candidate to support anyone.The claim of convincing any jury therefor,seem to me,to be quite ambitious,but there is an ideal jury,the posters of this site,and short of physical ability,nothing that I know of which prevents the evidence being given here.

Barrett I understand,is a very ill person.If he were to die,he could not of course refute any claim made against him.I would sincerely hope it doesn't come to that.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Sir Robert

With respect, and I recognise your loyalty to this artifact, your last post constituted nothing but special pleading and unreasoned dismissal of the views of others.

There was not one thing there that was relevant to the authenticity of the diary (as a product of the genuine JtR) or that would convince an outsider.

Sorry to be so blunt,

Phil

No need to apologize Phil. Seriously - have you read Diary threads from years gone past ? This is like High Tea by comparison.

Do me one favor though and point out precisely what unreasonably dismissed the views of others, so we can discuss it. Because to me, all I was doing was explaining why Anne may have threatened to burn the Diary rather than have Mike try to sell it.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I do not know Keith Skinner.It is now more than two years?since he announced himself as the bringer of good tidings regarding the object,and not one glimmer,to the masses,of what those tidings are.One thing is obvious,Barrett must come into the reckoning,he cannot be sidestepped,and Barrett is,on past record,not an ideal candidate to support anyone.

I have heard that Barrett is in somewhat better shape as he has cut down if not eliminated the sauce. This is hearsay.

I think Skinner's problem has been adequately addressed. He doesn't have permission to reveal his research as of yet. The man's integrity has never been questioned by a single senior Ripperologist and I don't propose to start now.

And I can tell you one thing: you'll never get a perfect chain of ownership for this stuff if thieves entered the picture. Best we could ever have hoped for was for reputable people to find them in some overlooked nook or cranny of Battlecrease and that didn't happen. Tough luck but it is what it is.

[The Good Michael]

SRA,

Do you know for a fact that Skinner has been commissioned and cannot reveal his information? If so, why doesn't (didn't) he say that rather than being mum about everything except that he has super secret information? Folks understand obligations, but secrets seem like so much BS.

Mike