One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Yes, it is very much time to put this puppy to bed. If Anne only suspected Mike had stolen property on his hands, then such a claim would have been impossible to back up.

Absolutely.

Any claim that the diary came from Battlecrease--should this debunked provenance have reemerged--was indeed "impossible to back up" because it never happened, and Anne knew it never happened.

Thus, she was free to weave her tall tales with impunity.

That's what I've been saying. We got there in the end, Thomas!

At least with her provenance story, she needed no other evidence.

Absolutely correct again.

All Anne had to do is to give a vague story of seeing the diary years earlier--and some added hokum about how her father got it from his gran who knew Alice Yapp---and this would misdirect any investigations away from Mike "Loose Cannon" Barrett--and whatever real connection she had to its origins.

All the better if she also threw in a story about a crucifix and visiting the grave of old Liverpool shipping agent as a child--Flinn, or whatever his name was.

It was all vague as hell--but precisely the sort of thing that would occupy the research teams for years and convince them that Mike and Anne couldn't have had anything to do with it.

You're on a roll!

[Iconoclast]

You're on a roll!

God only knows what you're on ...

[Iconoclast]

Caz once revealed that Keith Skinner had tried to quiz Anne about the diary, but she ran away and locked herself in a bathroom.

I suppose it is possible that Caz represented this event in this way, but I don't know.

Anyway, from the man accused of 'quizzing' Anne:

I think I know the incident RJ is referring to and I remember Anne beng very upset at a piece of information she had been told about (the source of which was Mike) and running out of the room. I was not quizzing Anne about the diary and she did not lock herself in the bathroom.

My emphasis, btw. Okay, maybe she locked herself in the pantry, or the greenhouse, or the vestibule, but I'm inferring she did no locking at all in whichever room she took herself off to to rage no doubt at her stupidity back in 1975 or whenever the hell she first agreed to go out with Bongo Barrett.

My point I think is made. You were attempting to coerce our dear, simple, ill-read, readers to conceive that Mr. Skinner was challenging Anne's account and she utterly crumbled under the weight of her terrible crime, resorting, we were led to believe, to literally locking herself away from the world in order to keep out the terrible truth of what she had done when she gave her provenance story to Paul Feldman.

Dear readers, you might all be a bit thick where the Maybrick case is concerned, but you can rest assured that as long as I draw breath your ignorance of the case will not be exploited by shady characters such as RJ Palmer.

No, honestly, you're all welcome.

[rjpalmer]

Thank Keith for me, Thomas, but this is not what I was remembering, but I do acknowledge having made an error in my account.

I think I made a mistake of memory, and it was not Keith who was daring to challenge Anne's veracity--it was someone far more skeptical about the diary: Martin Fido.

I distinctly remember being told that Anne would run from the room when quizzed by an unfriendly party (and I suppose Keith wouldn't fall into that category) and on one occasion locked herself into another room and Martin had to try to speak to her through a locked door. It sounds like such an utterly ridiculous thing for Anne to have done had she been telling the truth!

(And are we back to believing Anne Graham? How could she have seen the diary back around 1970 if it was under Dodd's floorboards?)

I'll see if I can find Martin's original account, but in the meantime, here is a second party (Ivor Edwards) who also recalled Martin's story back in 2002, so I am clearly not making it up, though yes--perhaps it was Martin and not Keith. My apologies.

But the fact that it was Martin makes it all the more interesting, in my opinion.



I remembered it being the bathroom; Ivor Edwards remembered Martin mentioning the kitchen.

Is not the point the same? Anne could clearly not stand the heat of being questioned by a non-believer. From everything I've read, she never answered questions from a hostile audience (unlike Mike Barrett) without acting either deeply upset or setting perimeters beforehand. Why is that? What honest, normal, candid person with a questioned document behaves that way?

I'll see if I can chase down Marin's original post.

By the way, maybe Keith also has information confirming Caz Brown's claim that Lynn Barrett was fully aware of Feldman's theories about Anne's ancestry, and this is why Lynn called Anne after hanging up the phone of Paul Feldman?

Caz's account certainly appears to be very different from the way Paul Feldman reported it in his book...and Feldman was the one on the telephone.

[rjpalmer]

the case will not be exploited by shady characters such as RJ Palmer.

Speaking of shady characters, while Keith is in the mood to set the record straight, and while the Maybrick watch is gaining so much renewed interest, is Keith willing to reveal the identity of Feldman's newfound friend 'Gary,' or the names of the two secret investors who were described by Shirley Harrison as 'menacing'?

I find it remarkable that people think they are seriously investigating the origin of etchings, yet do not only not know the names of these silent investors, nor even seem to care.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Here we go, the account was by Martin Fido and not Keith. I again apologize to Keith for suggesting that he might have quizzed Anne in any indelicate or confrontational way, but it doesn't appear that Martin was being indelicate either.

"She had a virtual screaming fit and locked herself into the bathroom for sometime"

[rjpalmer]

It's also interesting to note that Martn refers to another time when Anne was quizzed (apparently not by Martin himself?)--not about anything Mike had said--but about her own account.

Her bizarre story of hiding the diary from her own husband behind a piece of furniture "led to a good deal of complicated revision" which I think was Martin's kind way of saying that she was lying.

But, of course, I will be accused of "reading too much into it." I always am

[FISHY1118]

Thank you RJ, the abundance of information you provide is indeed all thats required for anyone to acknowledge the diary and watch hoax has simply to many holes in it to ever be taken seriously. . 9338 and counting.

[Iconoclast]

Thank you RJ, the abundance of information you provide is indeed all thats required for anyone to acknowledge the diary and watch hoax has simply to many holes in it to ever be taken seriously. . 9338 and counting.

I think it is safe to say, "I rest my case".

Less safe (even than my two day journey to Edinburgh and back Thursday and Friday) is a rather treacherous jauntin the frost and snow to Newcastle and back today. Hopefully I will return safely to address the latest inanities which so easily convince the ill-read.

[John Wheat]

I think it is safe to say, "I rest my case".

Less safe (even than my two day journey to Edinburgh and back Thursday and Friday) is a rather treacherous jauntin the frost and snow to Newcastle and back today. Hopefully I will return safely to address the latest inanities which so easily convince the ill-read.

The most ill-read on this site are those that still believe the diary was written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

The most ill-read on this site are those that still believe the diary was written by James Maybrick.

I think I can say with some considerable confidence that the only thing ill-read Ripperonomists ever need to read is my brilliant Society's Pillar in which I deal handsomely with all of the inanities which Ripperonomy has to hurl in the general direction of Johnny Milburn. As I keep saying, the 2025 version is going to be even more brilianter than the first, which was simply brilliant-beyond-measure in its day (ovvers).

The one-off instance to which I have no immediate answer is Lord "Too Many Barrats in this Tale" Orsam's "one off [no hyphen, note] instance" which he claims is a mental and literary juxtaposition which no-one in 1888 could have made. I can't contradict that. If a fifty years old Liverpudlian cotton merchant with strong ties to the American territories (did they have any actual states yet in 1888?) could not possibly have associated the nascent manufacturing term "one-off [hyphen, note]" with the rather more familiar "instance" then I'm at a loss how Jonas Maybury did so when confessing his devilish crimes. That's not the same as saying I accept Orsam's observation as categorical proof of error on the part of a hoaxer - it simply means I have no idea whether Maybrook could have juxtaposed two such terms as effortlessly as he seems to have done despite the retrospectively-claimed impossibility of his doing so.

All the other stuff - and I think we know what you're thinking about, dear readers, is handled superbly in my brilliant Society's Pillar so I shan't repeat myself here. I actually don't like to talk about it, to be honest, but the occasional mention does sell another thousand copies, so you've got to keep the marketing people happy, ain't yer?

[John Wheat]

I think I can say with some considerable confidence that the only thing ill-read Ripperonomists ever need to read is my brilliant Society's Pillar in which I deal handsomely with all of the inanities which Ripperonomy has to hurl in the general direction of Johnny Milburn. As I keep saying, the 2025 version is going to be even more brilianter than the first, which was simply brilliant-beyond-measure in its day (ovvers).

The one-off instance to which I have no immediate answer is Lord "Too Many Barrats in this Tale" Orsam's "one off [no hyphen, note] instance" which he claims is a mental and literary juxtaposition which no-one in 1888 could have made. I can't contradict that. If a fifty years old Liverpudlian cotton merchant with strong ties to the American territories (did they have any actual states yet in 1888?) could not possibly have associated the nascent manufacturing term "one-off [hyphen, note]" with the rather more familiar "instance" then I'm at a loss how Jonas Maybury did so when confessing his devilish crimes. That's not the same as saying I accept Orsam's observation as categorical proof of error on the part of a hoaxer - it simply means I have no idea whether Maybrook could have juxtaposed two such terms as effortlessly as he seems to have done despite the retrospectively-claimed impossibility of his doing so.

All the other stuff - and I think we know what you're thinking about, dear readers, is handled superbly in my brilliant Society's Pillar so I shan't repeat myself here. I actually don't like to talk about it, to be honest, but the occasional mention does sell another thousand copies, so you've got to keep the marketing people happy, ain't yer?

This post is absolute rubbish.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

You recently wrote:

Anne Graham felt safe enough to tell these tales, and the only way she could have been safe is if she and Mike had nothing to do with the diary's creation. Feldman had dismissed the electricians as liars and swindlers, but if she still suspected the diary was stolen property, so what? She wasn't the thief, and could not be held responsible for what Mike did or didn't know when he brought the old book into their home. If anyone was ever unwise enough to claim that they stole it and passed it on to her ex husband, that would be for the self-confessed thief and his suspected receiver to worry about. As I say, Anne was already free and clear of the latter.

I'm trying to reconcile your suggestion that Anne 'felt safe' in telling her tales with Martin's account of Anne throwing a 'virtual screaming fit' and locking herself in the bathroom at the mere site of a Diary skeptic.

As you frequently point out, I have a simple mind, but this doesn't strike me as to the behavior of a woman who was 'free and clear.'

Any ideas?

[rjpalmer]

at the mere site of a Diary skeptic.?

sight of a Diary skeptic, of course.

Anyway, as promised, here it is Caz: Paul Begg asking the same 'simple-minded' question I'm still asking. He refers to Lynn calling Anne as a 'curious detail.' What did Lynne expect Anne to do about it?



And even Feldman didn't know:



It appears that I'm in the same simple-minded club as the two Pauls, but I have a theory.

[Iconoclast]

Here we go, the account was by Martin Fido and not Keith. I again apologize to Keith for suggesting that he might have quizzed Anne in any indelicate or confrontational way, but it doesn't appear that Martin was being indelicate either. "She had a virtual screaming fit and locked herself into the bathroom for sometime"

Just to develop the debate, I should add that Keith - who may have been remembering a different event though I would question how many events Martin Fido attended with Anne Graham when Keith was not present - does not recall Anne having a 'virtual screaming fit'. He states:

I was present at the meeting Martin described but I certainly don't recognise it in the way Martin portrayed. It occurred circa 1995-1996 I believe and was not taped - although I may still have notes written up afterwards. I had forgotten that Anne did leave the room, visibly distressed, but I certainly do not recollect her locking herself in the bathroom and refusing to come out. Both Carol Emmas and Melvyn Fairclough were also present. As to why Anne left the room - at the time I took it to be because of the constant pressure she was under since July 1994 having to defend her actions at giving the diary to TD and not being able to evidentially support her story of having first seen the diary in the late 1960s.

My emphasis, by the way.

Assuming this is the same meeting, Keith Skinner's 'visibly distressed' has morphed into Martin Fido's 'virtual screaming fit'. Has Keith's memory underplayed it and Martin's overplayed it? I guess we'll never know, but what I am certain of is that there exists dubiety and it is dubiety over the details of an event which - in itself - was ambiguous. This is hardly the stuff of deductive rigour therefore I do not believe that anyone should be using it as part of their case to argue for the Victorian scrapbook being a hoaxed artefact.

Ike