One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Diary of a Nobody indeed

Was it, in my opinion, written by James Maybrick? No.
Was James Maybrick, in my opinion, Jack The Ripper? No.
Who wrote the 'Diary' then? I don't know.
Did Michael Barrett tell the truth regarding how he came by the 'Diary', or is Anne Barrett's version to be believed? What do YOU think?

This whole 'Diary' thing still fascinates me now as much as it did 20 years ago.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Long time no speak.

My advice would be not to take either Mike or Anne's unsupported word for how Mike came to be in possession of the diary - and start from there.

My current thinking is that it is an old hoax, likely by someone who had inside contacts for all their ripper and Maybrick information, and fancied tying both cases together for a bit of a literary, or even dare I say it, journalistic lark. I do know of someone who knew Macnaghten and Sims personally, was very much into true crime stories and who could have had access to Battlecrease along with the murder 'tourists' who arrived in the wake of the trial. Either he or his brother (I forget which, but Livia might be able to tell us) actually spent their honeymoon in Aigburth, which is a nice little coincidence that was entirely unexpected when I first looked into this.

Oh and the brothers did so enjoy their funny little Victorian hoaxes.

I have every confidence in Keith Skinner's research, following a hunch of mine, and absolutely no doubt that the diary did come out of Battlecrease House, though my lips unfortunately have to remain sealed for the time being concerning the fine details. Time will reveal all (about the provenance at least).

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

Yes, seems we're both part-timers these days.

I was aware of your theory concerning the 'Diary', and can't say that I totally disagree with it - it is certainly an old hoax, no doubt about that in my mind.

I never did believe Mike Barratt's claims, nor did I find Anne's story as eventually told to Paul Feldman entirely convincing, but I think there was more 'truth' in what she said than in Mike's tale.

I'm pretty sure I know the i.d. of the person to whom you refer, but won't drop any clues as I'd like to see if anyone else thinks they know!

Keith Skinner's eventual release of cat from bag much looked forward to.

ATB,

Graham

[caz]

The whole thing was cobbled together by a bunch of Scouse chancers in the 1980s as far as I'm concerned. And JTR genius writer Keith Skinner needs to put up or shut up about whether this thing came out of Maybrick's old house.

Hi Stephen,

I love you to bits, but if, as far as you are concerned, the whole thing was cobbled together by a bunch of Scouse chancers in the 1980s, shouldn't you be putting up or shutting up too, if you think it applies to Keith?

There is nothing you or Keith can do about the fact that evidence exists of it coming out of the house but no evidence of your mythical bunch of modern forgers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It never ceases to amaze me just how gullible people can be.

Hi Cris,

The only ones who are not gullible are those who won't accept a single word that comes from Mike Barrett without solid independent verification.

So I'm afraid the gullible people include all those who swallowed, and still swallow, any of his provably false confessions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Gladiator]

I have every confidence in Keith Skinner's research, following a hunch of mine, and absolutely no doubt that the diary did come out of Battlecrease House, though my lips unfortunately have to remain sealed for the time being concerning the fine details. Time will reveal all (about the provenance at least).
X

Hi Caz,

For those of us on the periphery of all things Ripperlike, this Keith-Skinner-Knows-More storyline which keeps periodically appearing is incredibly frustrating.

If he can show that the diary came out of Battlecrease House (or, indeed, was ever even just in it) and that it was not created in modern times, what's the secrecy all about?

Can you at least clarify why in legal terms he can't publish and be damned?

Cheers,

Gladiator

[Scott Nelson]

Of course Weedon didn't have the courage. But George did.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Gladiator

Can you at least clarify why in legal terms he can't publish and be damned?

As I understand it Keith undertakes paid commissions on behalf of folk who, as the term "paid commission suggests, pay him money to do research into particular areas. As such, anything factual and relevant that he discovers as a result of that research belongs, initially at least, exclusively to the folk who paid him.

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Hi Dave

Wasn't he also working for Cornwell ?

He's the inventor of mercenary ripperology.

Cheers

[Jonathan H]

No dount he does not agree but Keith Skinner is the researcher who found the 'West of England' MP source of 1891.

Arubaly he solved the 'mystery' by finding, in 1991, the 'Holy Grail' bridging source that had eluded Farson, Odell, Cullen and Rumbelow (of 1975).

The 'Diary' forger confessed and the make-up tale was an obvious dodge. It contains McCormick fakery in it.

[Gladiator]

The 'Diary' forger confessed and the make-up tale was an obvious dodge. It contains McCormick fakery in it.

If by forger you are referring to Mike Barrett, I don't believe that anyone takes his confessions seriously and - in putting them forward as evidence of the forgery - you probably just make yourself look more foolish than you probably intended?

Gladiator

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Gladiator.

If by forger you are referring to Mike Barrett, I don't believe that anyone takes his confessions seriously and - in putting them forward as evidence of the forgery - you probably just make yourself look more foolish than you probably intended?

Gladiator

I have no real axe to grind and am not well versed on the specifics, but when someone admits to forgery on multiple occasions, how can one ignore it? It becomes suspect. Highly to some I imagine. To just disregard it just seems irresponsible.

[Gladiator]

I have no real axe to grind and am not well versed on the specifics, but when someone admits to forgery on multiple occasions, how can one ignore it? It becomes suspect. Highly to some I imagine. To just disregard it just seems irresponsible.

It may seem suspect to those who have never encountered Mike Barrett, but those who have appear to be fairly unanimous in their agreement that it was not he who created the diary. Just watch the original video. Nice guy, simple Scouser, no master forger.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Gladiator.

Could that not simply be one allowing personal opinion to cloud their objectivity? And he might have been the sweetest and most sincere of individuals and still been involved or in the know of it being a hoax. When people like that do go off the straight and narrow it can make it extremely difficult to stomach. It's been awhile but I'll go back and watch again. Thanks.

[Graham]

I'm kind of getting the impression that not all posters to this thread have actually read much with regard to the 'Diary' and its appearance 20 years ago....

Read Paul Feldman's and Caz's books, and you will understand why it is highly unlikely that Mike Barratt could have written the 'Diary' or anything like it. He wasn't the type. Neither IMHO was Anne Barratt, although she was far better qualified than Mike. Also bear in mind that there was a police investigation into the question of whether the 'Diary' was a deliberate hoax to make money fraudulently (per the Hitler Diaries), and it concluded that it wasn't. OK, not the world's most thorough investigation perhaps, but nevertheless the officers involved backed off presumably through lack of evidence. Caz knows far more about the 'Diary' and the characters involved than I ever will, and she should be listened to and given due credit for her knowledge.

G

[caz]

Hi Dave

Wasn't he also working for Cornwell ?

He's the inventor of mercenary ripperology.

Cheers

That's a wee bit harsh! Everyone's entitled to make a living, surely? And if anyone could polish up Patricia Cornwell's act, she seems to have appreciated it would be Keith.

Anyway, I don't think his Battlecrease research has anything to do with Cornwell. (At least you spelled her name correctly. )

Love,

Caz
X