One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Soothsayer]

Are you talking about me slinking away into a forest ...?

I'm in a different time-zone. I have only just seen your pseudo-religious reply.

So, she she says it goes back to 1943, but we have no evidence from that year or any other, that it was actually sighted by anybody, until the 'Dairy' popped up in modern era -- right?

That's not good enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan) and this does not even come close to passing that test.

But it's vital to you that it be real, isn't it, which is not an historical approach.

Yes, of course I was referring to you.

And to Tom Westcott who recently made unsubstantiated claims about the diary.

Anne Barrett's father substantiated her story about the journal going back to 1943. Fair enough, he was her father, but you nevertheless have to call two people liars if you do not accept their stories. Have you some insight which you can share with us to justify such a claim?

Like Tom Westcott, you came on and made a wildly-inaccurate claim: you told the Casebook readers that the journal had no provenance except in the modern era, and I want you to man up and tell us all where you got this insight from. If it was from the usual wishful-thinking and misinformation which normally informs the judgements of journal-debunkers, then just admit it. Just say, "I thought it was true and I thought I could say what I want without having to answer for my claims, but you've got me Soothsayer, I don't actually have any grounds for making the claims I have made".

Incidentally, since when did Carl Sagan define scientific rigour? Extraordinary claims simply need evidence, full stop. That cuts both ways. If you are going to say that X is a known fact, be prepared to provide the evidence for it, extraordinary or otherwise ...

PS Let's be clear, I will live with the journal being a hoax if hoax it can be proven to be. Until the day it is so proven, I will not give up the fight to have its case made, and indeed defended against scurrilous wishful-thinking and misinformation. Amen to that, your graces.

[Magpie]

"Have you some insight which you can share with us to justify such a claim?"

Yep. Either she lied when they backed up the "Devereux" story, or they lied when they presented its replacement. Either way, Anne Graham is a liar.

"you told the Casebook readers that the journal had no provenance except in the modern era, and I want you to man up and tell us all where you got this insight from."

Provenance is what can be proven. Johnathon's claim was perfectly valid.

[Jonathan H]

Seen any Flying Saucers lately?

Is this all there is ...?

Somebody's father who is intimately connected with the pro-position...?

That's the objective testimony??

Is this really the entire 'defense' of the 'Diary' in terms of provenance?

Plus insults and bluster -- and very quick off the mark with those when I coiuld not respond being asleep on the other side of the world, sorry -- and weirdo-religio stuff about 'Seeing is Believing'?

The feebleness of an unpleasant buff's 'argument' can usually be measured by how quick they are to resort to personal invective.

So, not a shred of hard evidence that anybody saw it in 1943, or any year before it surfaced in the early 90's, or late 80's?

You've got nothing have you: a completely empty cupboard.

For those reading this who are unfamiliar with the late astronomer Carl Sagan's point about 'extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence' he meant that if you say you ate a pizza the night before, that is an ordinary claim and requires ordinary evidence, eg. I said I did is enough (though not conclusive that it happened). But if you claim to have eaten a pizza while cruising around on an extra-terrestrial craft then we need stronger 'evidence' than just [unreliable] human testimony.

We need a whole lot more ...

[Magpie]

Interesting question: of the Devereux nonsense hadn't fallen apart, would Anne Graham have ever "revealed" the story about the Diary in the trunk?

[Soothsayer]

"Have you some insight which you can share with us to justify such a claim?"

Yep. Either she lied when they backed up the "Devereux" story, or they lied when they presented its replacement. Either way, Anne Graham is a liar.

Anne Graham is not a liar in the context of what we know about the journal. Her story has never been contradicted by any evidence, and she has never changed her story. she didn't lie when Mike told the world how he got the journal (she simply kept quiet) - you can call that lying if you're desperate - and she isn't known to have lied when she admitted her role in Mike receiving the journal. She has never changed that story (to my knowledge).

When did 'they' (and who exactly are 'they') 'back up the "Devereux" story'. She didn't say a word about it, and she is perfectly entitled to have done so because - according to her testimony - it was she who had given the journal to Mike and she who had not wanted her husband to know this.

[Soothsayer]

Interesting question: of the Devereux nonsense hadn't fallen apart, would Anne Graham have ever "revealed" the story about the Diary in the trunk?

How and when did the 'Devereux nonsense' fall apart? You know more than the rest of us when you make this forthright claim, I suspect?

Nothing fell apart. It was a very simple story, and it never changed. There was no need to change the story. Anne eventually added to the story what she had withheld to begin with. That's her God-given right to do. She wasn't publishing the book. She wasn't claiming anything about the journal. She just happened to be Mike Barrett's wife whose terrible mistake (from her perspective) was to hand such a powerful document to her husband in the first place. The fact that she chose to hand it to Mike via Tony was her choice, has never been contradicted, and should not be ascribed to 'lying' unless you can demonstrate it is categorically so.

I'm not saying that Anne Barrett's story is true, but I'm definitely saying that there is not a scrap of evidence that it is untrue. Whilst it remains so, you should back up your claIms when you call her a liar.

[Soothsayer]

.

For those reading this who are unfamiliar with the late astronomer Carl Sagan's point about 'extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence' he meant that if you say you ate a pizza the night before, that is an ordinary claim and requires ordinary evidence, eg. I said I did is enough (though not conclusive that it happened). But if you claim to have eaten a pizza while cruising around on an extra-terrestrial craft then we need stronger 'evidence' than just [unreliable] human testimony.

I think the average reader will have comfortably understood his point without your explanation, thank you!

Our understanding his point doesn't make his position correct.

(You'll note that I have avoided an example of what I mean by this, but if anyone requires one, do let me know.)

[Magpie]

It was a very simple story, and it never changed. There was no need to change the story. Anne eventually added to the story what she had withheld to begin with. That's her God-given right to do.

And it's my "God-given" right to consider her untrustworthy and her story suspect for doing so. And "adding to" the story is just another way of saying she changed the story.

The fact that she chose to hand it to Mike via Tony was her choice, has never been contradicted,

And never been confirmed, either.

[Soothsayer]

And it's my "God-given" right to consider her untrustworthy and her story suspect for doing so. And "adding to" the story is just another way of saying she changed the story.

You know this woman? You know her well enough to 'consider her untrustworthy'? Please inform us how you could have reached such a conclusion! What knowledge do you have of Anne Barrett that allows you to make such slanderous and disgusting claims against her?

'Changing the story' is not lying, is it? Get your facts right before you make such claims! She told ONE story (not two), and that ONE story has not changed. She did NOT say that the journal came from Tony Devereux, though had she been asked she could have in all honesty said yes it had (because in her ONE story she said she gave it to him). She didn't say ANYTHING AT ALL, because she wasn't publishing the journal, she didn't want the journal published, she wasn't the centre of the story, and no-one asked her. Anne Barrett is not on trial here. If her story is true, then the fact that Tony Devereux had only the most passing hold on the journal has no bearing on the history of the journal nor its veracity, so there is absolutely no reason for Anne Barrett to leap in and provide more detail. She provided it only when Paul Feldman's obsessive research got too close and too personal and she wanted and needed it to abate.

And yet you are so knowledgable and so mighty that you alone decide that you don't LIKE her story, so she becomes 'untrustworthy'?

And never been confirmed, either.

In this particular case, we are not debating whether or not Anne Barrett's provenance has ever been confirmed. We are asking Jonathan H to tell us why he has stated that the journal had to be from the modern era given that we have an account going back to 1943. We are simply asking for the wishful-thinking and the misinformation to come with some small semblance of demonstration.

Arguing that the journal has never been proven is an ENTIRELY separate argument to the one we are engaging in here. Let's deal with one issue at a time, and we may make some progress. Nevertheless, let me add that it is an impressive work of 'fiction' which continues to be possibly true after 18 long years! The Hitler Diaries last about 18 weeks until they were proven to be categorically, incontrovertibly fake. We are clearly dealing with something far more powerful here than the work which The Times so famously got so utterly wrong.

As I have said before, in 120 years of Ripperology, there has never been anything more than speculation and misinformation, except in 1993 when a journal came to light which provides a candidate with means, motive, and opportunity, and rather than seek to understand how this journal could have appeared, the great detectives of the Casebook shake with terror at the thought of actually having to deal with something real, so they denigrate the journal without any real research, and then scurry off back to their convoluted, baseless mutterings about Druitt, and Kosminski, and Tumblety, and Lord only knows who else because there isn't a cat in Hell's chance of any of them providing any answers, thereby securing the future of the so-called debate.

Whilst I am on this point, and aware as I am that I am drifting off the point I said above we should be sticking to, the police at the time of the murders were spectacularly inept at capturing Jack, so quite why we are so compelled by the vague musings of those who headed the forces at that time, I don't know. Was it Druitt because MacNaughton thought it was Druitt? I don't know. If it was, he certainly got to that cricket match hundreds of miles away damned quickly. Was it whoever was referred to in Swanson's marginalia? Who cares? If the police knew who the Ripper was, they should have got their man or told who their man was at the time, not years later in unsubstantiated speculation.

The journal is a piece of hard evidence with its positives and its negatives. That should mean something, and the fact it doesn't for so many on this site makes you question the 'scientific rigour' being applied here.

[Jonathan H]

His name is spelt Macnaghten, not 'MacNaughton'.

[The Good Michael]

Until I read Anne Barrett's book, I had only read Jablonsky's (sp?) book and the Maybrick Diary book and had read them several years apart, I found the diary intriguing enough and was about 50/50 on its possibility as at least a real artifact. After Anne's book, I thought all of it was garbage and that Anne's story seemed to be utter nonsense.

Then I began to read a lot of the other Ripper books and visit this site and I think it is sad that anyone can stll believe in the diary. It is a pathetic waste of time and it doesn't matter of it's an old or a new hoax, it is still useless stuff with a story absolutely spun in a way that made ot plausible. After the critics got their licks in, the book is suitable for wiping... just.

Mike

[Soothsayer]

His name is spelt Macnaghten, not 'MacNaughton'.

Thank the Lord you hadn't gone back to that bed of yours - for, without your timely intervention, literally hundreds of readers around the world would have been Googling frantically, crying with anguish "MacNaughton? MacNaughton? Soothsayer has thrown me there. There's no 'MacNaughton' connected with the Ripper story. I'm completely confused and disorientated and in significant danger of missing the point that is being made here!".

They have you to thank for the ending of their distress, and I am forever in your debt as the second time in my life I have cause to spell his name, it will assuredly be correctly delivered, saving me from any further wounds from the tyranny of the pedant ...

If only Inspector Oberlyne of the Yard had had your attention to detail - he'd have surely seen those letters on Kelly's wall!

[Soothsayer]

Until I read Anne Barrett's book, I had only read Jablonsky's (sp?) book and the Maybrick Diary book and had read them several years apart, I found the diary intriguing enough and was about 50/50 on its possibility as at least a real artifact. After Anne's book, I thought all of it was garbage and that Anne's story seemed to be utter nonsense.

Then I began to read a lot of the other Ripper books and visit this site and I think it is sad that anyone can stll believe in the diary. It is a pathetic waste of time and it doesn't matter of it's an old or a new hoax, it is still useless stuff with a story absolutely spun in a way that made ot plausible. After the critics got their licks in, the book is suitable for wiping... just.

Mike

Harsh.

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

I know the book by Powell ('Fame or Infamy') is covered in silence on this site but putting most of the book aside (all the 'awkward bits') what do you think about the possibility that Powell's friend Steve Park had at least started the Diary?

(This must be the third time I've asked this question - perhaps someone will answer this time. Hope so).

Carol

[Steven Russell]

Watch scratches

I recently read somewhere (may have been Ripperana but I'm not sure) that the analysis which suggests the watch scratches are decades old is flawed and they may be recent in origin. Comments anyone?

Brest wishes,
Steve.