One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

**Casebook Wiki Editor** · 07-23-2010, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post

SRA,

Do you know for a fact that Skinner has been commissioned and cannot reveal his information?

I have heard it from several sources, but I believe the best person to ask (besides Keith) is Caz, who has worked with him in the past on Ripper Diary. Personally, I would take it to the bank but hopefully Caz will opine. It's pretty open knowledge that he was commissioned to work on the Diary; for a long time I thought it was by Patricia Cornwall, intent on debunking it once and for all to clear the air for Sickert in the popular arena, but that was my error as apparently it has to do with one of the more controversial Ripper letters instead. I could easily be wrong there as well, but I have been poking around for awhile on this.

Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post

If so, why doesn't (didn't) he say that rather than being mum about everything except that he has super secret information? Mike

This is just my surmise: he was at a Maybrick conference, and in the spirit of the moment said something he probably wishes he hadn't. We can try to reverse engineer some implications from it, and that is what I have tried to do as armchair detective.

Keith apparently chooses to stay away from the likes of the Casebook and the Forums, and I really can't blame anyone who does, especially if they have privileged information. These boards have calmed down considerably, and Caz and I now moderate the JTR Forums Diary/Watch threads, but even so it takes a certain kind of critter to participate.

**caz** · 07-23-2010, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Sir Robert Anderson View Post

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.

Hi Sir Robert,

How the aptly named Albert acquired his watch is documented. He bought it fair and square on July 14th, 1992. (How about that? And with a lovely great JO engraved on it too. Nobody could have made that up. Regular as clockwork too.)

Albert told me on several occasions - and he never contradicted himself - that the first his brother knew about the purchase was when he excitedly telephoned him one day in 1993 to tell him about the markings that one of his workmates had noticed when he was showing off his timepiece.

The two went back to the jeweller to show them to him and ask if he knew anything about them or the history of the watch itself. We know from Dr Turgoose and his electron microscope that the barely visible Maybrick/Jack markings were the earliest made on that surface, and were therefore in situ when all the later scratches, repair marks, letters and numbers and what have you were added. The jeweller had no problem with anything on that surface, and acknowledged that everything looked just as he remembered when he put it in the shop window.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but in what imaginary universe does anyone, who has beavered away hoaxing the ripper's signature and victims' initials, and gone to the trouble of engraving clearly visible and legible genuine looking repair letters and numbers on top of all that, go back and show the jeweller and expect him not to notice anything different?

The watch always did make people go quiet. When I got the watch reports into the public domain there were some squeals of protest at first, as if I had farted in front of the vicar. But since the order of those scratches sank in, and couldn't be gainsaid, the silence has been deafening.

Love,

Caz
X

PS It was explained on the boards, very shortly after Keith's Battlecrease statement, that he had obligations towards the person (not Patty in this instance) who paid for the research not to reveal more until he got the go-ahead. If only folks had understood such obligations, I might not now be having to explain this all over again for the umpteenth time. I don't blame The Good Michael. I blame the vocal minority who like nothing better than to spread muck of their own making. It can be a real devil to scrape off again.

**caz** · 07-23-2010, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by harry View Post

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.

Hi Harry,

I understand and appreciate your concern for our Mike. But have no fear, the last I heard he was doing fine. The only claims made against him are those he brought on himself with his provably false or hopelessly contradictory stories about how the diary came into being and ended up in his hands. And the claims almost universally have him knowingly involved in a modern hoax.

Rest assured that Mike won't be relied on, dead or alive, to 'support' anyone on the Battlecrease front. We know he had the diary because he took it to Doreen Montgomery and co to do something with. (Doreen, bless her, has never had any stick for recognising an enduring yarn when she saw one.) So of course he's in the reckoning. But beyond that, if he can't or won't tell a story that has independent verification, he'll be about as much use to our jury as Druitt's train ticket.

Love,

Caz
X

**Scott Nelson** · 07-23-2010, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Sir Robert Anderson View Post

So.....to reiterate: I said earlier that Keith's jury remark might imply the Diary was stolen from Battlecrease....So if the Diary was stolen, was the Watch stolen as well ?

I don't think Keith said the Watch came out of Battlecrease in addition to the Diary. Or could it have?

**Casebook Wiki Editor** · 07-23-2010, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

I don't think Keith said the Watch came out of Battlecrease in addition to the Diary.

He hasn't opined one way or the other to my knowledge.

Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

Or could it have?

Sure. I am leaning towards thinking it did. Why not consider that ?

As I have said many times before, if you wish to believe these are forgeries, either modern or old, you have to assume they were pretty dumb forgers to not cook 'em up at the same time. Now, the majority of Diary World posters indeed think we are dealing with dolts, dolts for forgers as well as us for dolts for believing the items might be old.

Well, they've outsmarted us so far in the lab and in the field, so who's really the dummies ?

I have no easy explanation for why the writing in the Diary does not look like the handwriting samples we believe to be Maybrick's. But the sig on the Watch eerily does IMHO. So we're left with one item traced to Battlecrease and (I suspect) the other not far behind.

Who BTW is to say how long that Watch was really in that shop IF it was of dubious ownership shall we say ? Has anyone ever looked into seeing if the jewelry store in question had ever had questions from the police about fencing stolen goods ? I AM NOT trying to besmirch their reputation; just asking the IMHO logical questions that need to be asked.

**Graham** · 07-23-2010, 09:59 PM

Been many a long year since I posted anything on these boards about the Diary or Watch, and I've been reading with some interest recent posts on the subject. What always struck me was that the thunderous ones amongst us absolutely rained bolt after bolt against the Diary, probably with good reason, but the watch has (to me, at least) always seemed slightly more proof to attempts to discredit it. Turgoose has proved harder to shake than the various merchants who analysed the Diary's ink, handwriting, and so forth.
Without going into any particular detail, if I had the Diary and the Watch in front of me right now, with their known provenances, I'd go for the Watch any time.

I still have this little itch in the back of my mind that the Diary is a forgery but not a modern one. Don't want to dig up ancient history as far as these boards are concerned, but quite a few people will know what I mean. I am convinced that M Barrett was not only taken in left, right and centre, but that his missus knew a hell of a lot less about the friggin' Diary than she ever cared to let on. It had to come from somewhere, no doubt about that, but from Battlecrease, in relatively modern times? Hmmm, well....not sure.

Regarding the watch, Caz has summed it up very neatly in her post - Albert Johnson and Mike Barrett were chalk and cheese. Albert also turned down a huge offer for the watch from a collector in Texas - $90000, was it? Couldn't see old Mike turning down a tenth of that. Or do we go for the Powell theory that the watch was somehow planted on Albert, who turned into little more than a patsy? Powell? Powell? So what the heck happened to him?

Good thread, fellas. Enjoying it immensely.

Graham

**Casebook Wiki Editor** · 07-24-2010, 06:45 AM

Live at Leeds Revisited

Originally posted by Graham View Post

but the watch has (to me, at least) always seemed slightly more proof to attempts to discredit it. Turgoose has proved harder to shake than the various merchants who analysed the Diary's ink, handwriting, and so forth.

Actually the ink analysis "contest" is pretty decisive once you get into the details of Leeds versus AFI. No self-respecting scientist would give the AFI results the time of day. And I am not saying that because I wish to advance my agenda; it's the other way around.

For years, it was presented on these boards as the Diary having undergone various tests, with mixed results. The delusional - having never studied the results or methodologies - starting chanting for "new tests" to finally resolve the ambiguity. Well, there ain't no "new tests" that can say when ink hit paper and Leeds proved it wasn't Diamine or inconsistent with age appropriate ink.

AFI's results came from samples not taken directly from the Diary (!!!!!) and stored in gelatin capsules which are quite permeable. Contamination is an issue and no scientist would ever store samples in gelatin. It's just not done.

Leeds was state of the art and expensive; AFI was a mom and pop store by comparison. Leeds used ultra fine equipment to remove their samples; whoever took what ultimately arrived at AFI used something that looks like a paper clip to push out their samples. I mean, it's really an unfunny joke that we ever wasted time on this.

So, you can forget the ink controversies: they should never have existed in the first place. It's the handwriting that is the "problem". So as far as I am concerned, if you want to think in terms of a boxing match: In one corner we have the handwriting, and in the other Keith Skinner saying it came out of Battlecrease. Tough bout for both sides.

Originally posted by Graham View Post

Without going into any particular detail, if I had the Diary and the Watch in front of me right now, with their known provenances, I'd go for the Watch any time.

Me too.

**ChainzCooper** · 07-24-2010, 06:52 AM

I enjoy reading your posts on this board Robert keep up the good work
Jordan

**Stewart P Evans** · 07-24-2010, 08:41 AM

Debates

As most people know I do not like to get involved in debates about the 'diary'. In 1993/4 I was involved in the emergence of this highly dubious artifact and witnessed a lot of what 'went on', spending quite a bit of time at Paul Feldman's office.

I am perceived as an arch 'anti-diary' person, though, as those who know me should know, I merely believe that honesty should be at the forefront of Ripper research and this was a quality that was noticeable by its absence in many aspects of the promotion of the 'diary' which was exploited as a money-making exercise. There can be no doubt that it raised a huge amount of interest in the subject.

However, my files on the 'diary' are vast, much of which has never been published and I am intrigued to see that interest in the 'diary' soldiers on in certain quarters and that some are actually convinced by it. In this vein I thought that I would post miscellaneous items and news reports from my files for other to comment upon.

Daily Telegraph Monday April 19, 1993.