One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Stewart P Evans]

Independent on Sunday

From the Independent on Sunday August 29, 1993 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Sunday Times

From the Sunday Times July 3, 1994 -

[Stewart P Evans]

The Observer

From The Observer, April 25, 1993 -

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

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

I,too,come in peace seeking the truth. I have not always been a Maybrickian; that is a recent conversion. I have as you know long been a "this damn thing just might be old" person.

Thanks for the many scans.

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.

This is where our perceptions would differ, with the important caveat that you take the Barretts out of the picture en toto and recognize that Melvin got a little too "overheated" on his end. I realize and respect that he was a close and dear friend of yours but his judgments vis a vis lab work and some attendant results were seriously flawed. I apologize for even mentioning Melvin and the Barretts in the same paragraph but I am sure you get my point.

Back to honesty. Robert Smith is an honorable man, a point I am certain you will agree with. He was, and is, a publisher. He wasn't, and isn't, a Ripperologist. The Diary was to him a money making proposition - as it should have been. Books are published by publishers to make $$$$. I do not see in the historical record where he acted in a dishonest way.

Feldman wanted to make a movie, and make money from it. The nature of the entrepreneurial beast. I think he got bamboozled big time by the Barretts
but I think he was as much a True Believer in the authenticity of the Diary as Melvin H. became a jihadi against it. I don't see dishonesty there, either.

There is one thing I have noted on these boards over the years, and I do think it is a cultural thing. Money making and trying to hustle a dollar are viewed by Americans, by and large, as laudable things. We don't envy the rich as much as wish to become one of them. I sense a more ambivalent viewpoint from the other side of the Pond. Perhaps that accounts for some of this.

Anyhow, greetings from Malaysia SPE and I hope all is well on your end. I am off to Burma next week and so will be far from cyberspace.

[The Good Michael]

Sir,

I agree that making a buck can be laudable in American culture, but being dishonest in the process is never generally accepted.

To the diary: One major weakness in the idea of Maybrick as JTR is that without the diary, there is absolutely no case for it. It is a virtual absurdity. From the diary, a story is pieced together that, in combination, has a semblance of plausibility. The diary is at least 95% of the evidence.

Again, a case without the diary cannot be made.

Mike

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I agree that making a buck can be laudable in American culture, but being dishonest in the process is never generally accepted.

No question about dishonesty, but Americans do respect a hustler. I've just noticed a general British disdain towards the profit motive, as if doing something for money is somehow less noble than something done for pure research. I don't break a sweat over Cornwell's book, for instance. Or Keith Skinner working with her. I've seen a lot of self published crack pot theories.....I have posted my share. I like the Yankee Dollar, as A.P. used to say with pejorative intent. Mind you I worked on Wall Street for 20 years at Goldman and Lehman so my view on these matters may not fit with the mindset on the Casebook and the Forums.

Bottom line for me is that Robert Smith intended the Diary to be a profit making venture, which to me is perfectly sane and normal. I think the Ripper community is not necessarily as sane and normal. YMMV. He's a publisher and publishers like publicity. So hitting the newspapers with the story at that time seems natural to me.

To the diary: One major weakness in the idea of Maybrick as JTR is that without the diary, there is absolutely no case for it. It is a virtual absurdity. From the diary, a story is pieced together that, in combination, has a semblance of plausibility. The diary is at least 95% of the evidence.

I agree with you, although I cannot see a way to establish an accurate weighing of the "evidence", i.e. 70% Watch, 30% Diary or your own suggestion. The battle over the Diary is over 15 (!!) years old and no one is changing their mind methinks until we get a glimpse at what Mr. Skinner believes he can prove.

Let me ask you this, Michael. If Keith's evidence satisfies you that the Diary is indeed from Battlecrease, doesn't that provide a greater degree of linkage to Maybrick than before ? Especially if it was stolen (N.B. my hunch and wild a$$ speculation)? Because if it was indeed stolen and the current owner did not know about it, there is a strong implication that it was hidden in the house and not lying around on the coffee table. Once you start to put some age on the document, which several of the tests have done, it becomes well, interesting to say the least.

And what if the Watch can be linked to Battlecrease as well ? (My speculation as well.) Does that change your opinion ? I'm currently just not buying into the idea that the wife who co-owned the jewelry store got it from her dear old Dad. Not feeling the love.....

I could be dead wrong. Some have indeed suggested this.

It is however nis to discuss these matters politely after all these years. Perhaps we can at least partially thank Skinner for that at the very least. Ditto Chris Jones.

[Stewart P Evans]

Perception

I,too,come in peace seeking the truth. I have not always been a Maybrickian; that is a recent conversion. I have as you know long been a "this damn thing just might be old" person.
Thanks for the many scans.
This is where our perceptions would differ, with the important caveat that you take the Barretts out of the picture en toto and recognize that Melvin got a little too "overheated" on his end. I realize and respect that he was a close and dear friend of yours but his judgments vis a vis lab work and some attendant results were seriously flawed. I apologize for even mentioning Melvin and the Barretts in the same paragraph but I am sure you get my point.
Back to honesty. Robert Smith is an honorable man, a point I am certain you will agree with. He was, and is, a publisher. He wasn't, and isn't, a Ripperologist. The Diary was to him a money making proposition - as it should have been. Books are published by publishers to make $$$$. I do not see in the historical record where he acted in a dishonest way.
Feldman wanted to make a movie, and make money from it. The nature of the entrepreneurial beast. I think he got bamboozled big time by the Barretts
but I think he was as much a True Believer in the authenticity of the Diary as Melvin H. became a jihadi against it. I don't see dishonesty there, either.
There is one thing I have noted on these boards over the years, and I do think it is a cultural thing. Money making and trying to hustle a dollar are viewed by Americans, by and large, as laudable things. We don't envy the rich as much as wish to become one of them. I sense a more ambivalent viewpoint from the other side of the Pond. Perhaps that accounts for some of this.
Anyhow, greetings from Malaysia SPE and I hope all is well on your end. I am off to Burma next week and so will be far from cyberspace.

Robert, with all due respect I was involved in the research and development of the 'diary' saga and knew/know most of the key players. There is much that has never been, and I suspect never will be, published. I spent much time in Feldman's office at the time. Naturally your perception would be totally different from mine.

I do not let my feelings regarding Melvin affect my perception of what happened and the full and unbiased story has never been told. Obviously I don't regard it as wrong to make money out of research, a book or a film or documentary. That would be silly, I have written books and been involved in TV and film myself. The material in my possession includes private letters, invoices, and suchlike, most of which I am unable to make public. So, please, do not doubt that I have a much fuller picture of all this than people who have merely read about it.

I was going to post scans of some of my material (which I feel it would be possible to make public) but I have now decided this would not be a good idea and withdraw from this thread.

[The Good Michael]

Sir,

If the diary was lying in wait in Battlecrease for 90+ years, then it certainly would be a product of the Victorian period, regardless of slipshod language use and would increase the chances of Maybrick's legitamacy as JTR... greatly. Being from Battlecrease and being of Battlecrease are two different things.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Sir,

If the diary was lying in wait in Battlecrease for 90+ years, then it certainly would be a product of the Victorian period, regardless of slipshod language use and would increase the chances of Maybrick's legitamacy as JTR... greatly. Being from Battlecrease and being of Battlecrease are two different things.

Cheers,

Mike

Addition: Re: the watch. It seems to me simply a creation to bolster the diary and a completely unrealistic item "discovered" for a quick buck. Just my take.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The material in my possession includes private letters, invoices, and suchlike, most of which I am unable to make public. So, please, do not doubt that I have a much fuller picture of all this than people who have merely read about it.

I do not doubt you for one second. But we all seem to have different pieces of the puzzle; I am certain you aren't referring to me as a mere spectator. And I know you have the utmost respect for Keith Skinner. Pity we can't all work together but it seems to be the nature of the Beast.

I was going to post scans of some of my material (which I feel it would be possible to make public) but I have now decided this would not be a good idea and withdraw from this thread.

I am sorry to hear this but you have to do what is best for you. Certainly this thread has been the calmest and most respectful Diary thread in Casebook history; I guess the doctors have finally all gotten our meds right. So till we meet again.....

[Graham]

Odd how a few people seem to be coming round to the notion that the Diary's an old fake...

...equally odd that the Watch, which to my mind at least had been shown by the excellent analysis of Dr Turgood not to have been created, scratchwise, in recent years, is seen by many to be a a bigger hoax/fake than the Diary!

Oddest of all is - what's happened to Steve Powell?

Graham

[caz]

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?

Hi Graham,

Glad you are enjoying the discussion.

Oddly enough, Mike did turn down an offer for the ‘diary’ of £15,000, made on March 19, 1993, a couple of months before Albert discovered he had the Maybrick watch. The story can be found from page 28 of Ripper Diary, telling how Mike turned down £15,000 and accepted £1 instead.

Powell, I’m afraid, has not even got a grasp of the basics. The watch could not possibly have been ‘planted’ on Albert, because he bought the thing of his own free will on July 14, 1992.

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.

Hi Sir Robert,

Just a quick correction here. The dots of ink on paper which arrived at AFI came from the US, left over from the tests conducted by Rendell and co. There is no suggestion that they were taken from the diary improperly. The paper clip incident was later, when AFI took paper only samples directly from the diary in Shirley’s presence.

I do not let my feelings regarding Melvin affect my perception of what happened and the full and unbiased story has never been told.

Hi Stewart,

Are you saying that Robert Smith and Keith Skinner know the full and unbiased story and have decided never to tell it? Or are you saying that you and Melvin knew the full and unbiased story and decided never to tell it to Robert Smith or Keith Skinner?

I'm trying to figure out just why nobody who knows the full and unbiased story seems prepared to tell it. As you know, Keith gets a lot of stick for not yet revealing all he knows about Battlecrease, which seems a tad unfair if other reputable researchers like yourself are sitting on secret material which they can’t or won’t ever make public. If your material could have shown the ‘diary’ or watch to be recent fakes, that’s a great pity. As you know, Keith has been trying from the beginning to prove himself wrong about the artefacts not being late 20th century creations. If there is anything in your material that could help him do this, I know he’d appreciate a look at it in confidence - unless of course you have commercial plans of your own for it, which he would respect.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

Oddly enough, Mike did turn down an offer for the ‘diary’ of £15,000, made on March 19, 1993, a couple of months before Albert discovered he had the Maybrick watch. The story can be found from page 28 of Ripper Diary, telling how Mike turned down £15,000 and accepted £1 instead.

I'd forgotten all about that! I said a few posts ago that it was time I re-read your book. Didn't MB also collect a good few quid in royalties, too?

Cheers,

Graham

[caz]

Indeed he did, Graham. And there would have been a good few more quid coming MB's way if he hadn't pulled the plug by claiming he wrote the 'cash cow' himself.

The fools who rush in where the 'diary' is concerned have tended to be their own worst enemies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hi Sir Robert,

Just a quick correction here. The dots of ink on paper which arrived at AFI came from the US, left over from the tests conducted by Rendell and co. There is no suggestion that they were taken from the diary improperly. The paper clip incident was later, when AFI took paper only samples directly from the diary in Shirley’s presence.

I may have misspoken or not been precise in my language. Either way, my bad. The ink samples were not taken improperly by Rendell. It is a storage issue. The paper samples were taken IMHO improperly by AFI.

The issue with the leftover dots is that they were stored in gelatin capsules, as you know. No self respecting lab would store anything in such a permeable container, and no reputable lab would agree to analyze the same and release the results without heavy disclaimers.

Scientists use glass for a reason.

Which leads to point number two, is that for AFI THEMSELVES to have taken paper samples by pushing them out with a paper clip (this was my surmise, you seem to say it's fact) is just beyond comprehension.

There is of course the side issue of a lab analyzing ink samples alleged to be from the Diary, but not taking the samples themselves directly. Sounds like I'm trying to be nasty, but can you imagine the horse manure that would have been spread around if Leeds had done it that way ? There is that legal nicety called chain of possession and a lot of criminals have walked away from crimes because the police couldn't demonstrate continuous documented proof of keeping evidence safe from tampering. I can't for a minute imagine the samples were tampered with, but what if they were misstored even briefly before being encapsulated?

This entire Leeds versus AFI debate was a useless exercise in net babble. It should never have even been contested. In fact, the whole "test it, test it now" gangbang was an exercise in group sociopathology. (If this isn't a real term in psychology, you will have to forgive me.)