One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

No but i have it as one of the things on my list of things I would like to do before i die !

Hi Trev, me old darlin',

Let's hope meeting you would also be on Mike's list of things to do before he shuffles off. I'd pay good money to see it. At least thruppence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi
Well that first affidavit is written in such detail and with so much background content that in my opinion the only person who could have drawn up that affidavit was the person who did what is actually written in he affidavit.

If it wasn't Barrett and he didn't do any of that then things he said he did in the affidavit we must ask who did?

And who was going to have all the monies from the press and media which was being thrown in Barrett's direction.

You are a funny man, Trev.

Nobody could have done what Mike claimed, because it was all contradictory nonsense, and provably so. That's probably why he was advised to retract it. It couldn't have been used to incriminate anyone - unless of course the judge happened to be senile. It just made Mike come across as a hopeless liar.

Certainly, his initial and rather desperate claim, made to the papers in June 1994, that he wrote the thing himself, put paid to any more monies being thrown in his direction. But his aim from that point was to scupper Feldman's plans, even at the expense of future royalties.

Don't forget the previous year, 1993, Mike had turned down an offer of £15,000 for the diary (made by Feldman, although Mike didn't know that at the time), and instead handed it over to his publisher, Robert Smith, for £1. I have offered Robert £2 for it but have yet to strike a deal.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Flowery Twats

I would prefer those questions be answered on here by those who know the answers.

Fine. Well, you just go down and have a really good night's sleep then. I'm hoping to get a couple of hours later on myself. I'll be up in time to serve you your breakfast in bed. If you could remember to sleep with your mouth open, you won't even have to wake up. I'll just drop in small pieces of lightly buttered kipper when you're breathing in the right direction, if THAT doesn't put you out.

Oh God, another cuppa nearly spat all over my keyboard.

That was hilarious, Chris. Glad to see you have finally developed a sense of humour regarding this topic.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Besides opinions count for nothing and are misleading and are not evidence...

So your opinion that Eddowes could have used half her pinny as a makeshift tampon counts for nothing, is misleading and is not evidence.

Good to see you clear that one up. It was a bit of a mess, wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Oh God, another cuppa nearly spat all over my keyboard.

That was hilarious, Chris. Glad to see you have finally developed a sense of humour regarding this topic.

I had to smile myself, I'm sure I saw the distinct inspiration from Fawlty Towers in that comment from Chris.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=caz;271324]So your opinion that Eddowes could have used half her pinny as a makeshift tampon counts for nothing, is misleading and is not evidence.

Good to see you clear that one up. It was a bit of a mess, wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X[/QUOTE

Well We wont argue on that issue again will we.

You just make sure that you as far as the diary is concerned you keep avoiding answering direct questions on delicate matters close to your heart.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It's unusual for an artefact to acquire provenance later in the piece though, isn't it? They either have it or they don't, surely?

Sorry, Colin, I didn't mean to ignore your sensible question. My attention was diverted by all the silly stuff that came subsequently.

Of course an artefact cannot acquire provenance it didn't already have. But everything physical comes from somewhere, at some point since the dawn of time. Sometimes it can be traced back to its origins, sometimes it can't, and sometimes it takes time and effort to establish where it began life and when.

Clearly, if all we ever had was Mike's unsupported claim to have got the diary from a dead mate, that would be it - no provenance. But equally clearly, Keith's independent evidence that it was once in Battlecrease House, before Mike brought it to London, would be provenance discovered, not acquired.

The question of provenance would seem to be academic in any case, since the author made no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting, which means that even if it could be proved beyond all doubt that the thing was sitting in Battlecrease House in the 'right' era, it would still not make it a genuine ripper confession by the real James Maybrick.

The question I always ask is if this had been a credible confession to the Whitechapel murders, emerging after so long, why would anyone expect it to have been blessed with the kind of provenance that we see with, for instance, the Swanson marginalia or the Macnaghten memoranda? Its very nature would have fought against the idea of having provenance. If hidden away by the murderer, it would have required someone else to have known of its existence at that time, and written about it somewhere, and for that record to have been passed down the generations and able to identify the actual confession when it finally saw daylight again. I can't imagine how else a murderer's genuine confession from many decades ago is supposed to come with a decent provenance. It's not like anything you'd see in an antiques catalogue.

Love,

Caz
X

[jmenges]

no nearer the real truth so I think I will save my hard earnt pennies and my valuable time

That's exactly the reason why I do not buy your books.

JM

[caz]

So your opinion that Eddowes could have used half her pinny as a makeshift tampon counts for nothing, is misleading and is not evidence.

Good to see you clear that one up. It was a bit of a mess, wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X[/QUOTE

Well We wont argue on that issue again will we.

You just make sure that you as far as the diary is concerned you keep avoiding answering direct questions on delicate matters close to your heart.

Well that was as clear as mud, wasn't it, Trev? I see you still haven't mastered the quote function, so I suppose it's too much to expect you to come up with a coherent argument.

Yes, I'd up it to fourpence to see you and Mike Barrett thrash it out - in writing preferably.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

[QUOTE=caz;271314]No Graham,

It is definitely, provably a gentleman's dress watch - not that it would make any difference either way.

Love,

Caz
X

I could swear that I read somewhere it was a ladies' watch, but as you say no difference either way. (Thinks: was it that so-called horologist who lived in Spain who said that? Was he also the one who said he had 'proof' that Robbie Johnson was murdered...?)

Graham

[Trevor Marriott]

Well that was as clear as mud, wasn't it, Trev? I see you still haven't mastered the quote function, so I suppose it's too much to expect you to come up with a coherent argument.

Yes, I'd up it to fourpence to see you and Mike Barrett thrash it out - in writing preferably.

Love,

Caz
X

Rule 1 Caz
Never judge a book by its cover.

And I would give five pence for you to come out and disclose all you really know about the diary instead of continually playing the " I think" card.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's exactly the reason why I do not buy your books.

JM

Well i wont lie awake at night worrying about that.

[Livia]

I believe, and have been informed, there will be a 10
minute segment on Maybrick on tonight's
Ripper Podcast, to air at 9 pm est, presented
by Robert Anderson.

But check back here later to make sure it
hasn't been postponed or re-scheduled and that
I have correctly relayed the date and time.

[Jenni Shelden]

Rule 1 Caz
Never judge a book by its cover.

Indeed, well said, LOL

ps that was sarcasm

[caz]

I could swear that I read somewhere it was a ladies' watch, but as you say no difference either way. (Thinks: was it that so-called horologist who lived in Spain who said that? Was he also the one who said he had 'proof' that Robbie Johnson was murdered...?)

Graham

Hi Graham,

Yes, Stanley Dangar wrongly thought it was a lady's watch and believed Robbie had been bumped off, which helped convince him it was a modern fake. He was another conspiracy theorist who was completely away with the fairies.

Love,

Caz
X