One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Is the handwriting standing between you and the as-yet unsupported belief that the mysterious hoaxer, with 'insider' knowledge, could be James Maybrick himself?

If so, then you are dismissing James as a possible or probably hoaxer for a flimsy reason. Please give the researchers, who found the samples of Kurten's handwriting, some credit.

Well it's an intriguing idea, and not one I recall seeing before, MayBea. But hoaxers don't generally give away their real identity, and I can't see the real James playing such a hoax on himself, by pretending to be the ripper and making it obvious in the text who he is - even if the handwriting suggests otherwise - then hiding it in his own house, not knowing if or when it will come to light, or what the reaction might be.

What would have been the point? The 'joke' would have been firmly on him.

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

...'I frequented my club' means to go there frequently, while Sir Jim meant it in the sense of a single occasion, as in: 'I went to my club (last night or whenever)'. It's just a bit of pretentious twaddle - deliberate in my view, in line with the high and mighty character being drawn....

Aren't these the same arguments used to prove a modern hoaxer?

What is the one argument that separates modern from old hoaxer? Or is it just a matter of opinion and interpretation of the data?

I would use the same one to prove the author went to America, as did Maybrick, or he wanted to make him look like he was influenced by America.

I personally was taught in elementary to use big words, not the right word. In high school, I once ended up using the word sordid for cold when I meant cold as in "sordid metal".

[caz]

Aren't these the same arguments used to prove a modern hoaxer?

What is the one argument that separates modern from old hoaxer? Or is it just a matter of opinion and interpretation of the data?

Oh yes, of course it's a matter of opinion and interpretation - that's why I said the author's misuse of 'frequented' was deliberate in my view.

It's still pretentious twaddle, whoever wrote it or when. And that someone decided to make it come from Maybrick's pen.

But anyone can make any argument they like, and it still wouldn't prove when the diary was written.

Love,

Caz
X

[MayBea]

Oh yes, of course it's a matter of opinion and interpretation - that's why I said the author's misuse of 'frequented' was deliberate in my view....

Sam Flynn's Annotated Diary has a hyphen next to "Frequented my club". Is there a hyphen?

[GUT]

G'Day all

Just wondering if I've got this all right:

Most [if not all] people who have met him say Mike Couldn't have written, to drunk, not well enough educated etc.

Anne Graham later says, it's been in the family for years and I had Devereaux give it mike in the hope Mike could turn it into a diary.

To me the two don't add up.

Can anyone shed some light on the issue for me.

Thanks

[Kaz]

G'Day all

Just wondering if I've got this all right:

Most [if not all] people who have met him say Mike Couldn't have written, to drunk, not well enough educated etc.

Anne Graham later says, it's been in the family for years and I had Devereaux give it mike in the hope Mike could turn it into a diary.

To me the two don't add up.

Can anyone shed some light on the issue for me.

Thanks

If you believe the explanation its completely plausible, Anne didn't want to be linked (family wise) to the thing, mike was in a bad place and she thought the diary would be a good distraction.


Its perfectly plausible she handed it to Devereaux to pass onto mike?

Later she came clean to Feldman about its origins. This is the problem with the provenance, we don't know the truth about it.

Lots think it came FROM Maybricks house, if thats the case he wrote it (IMO)

[caz]

Sam Flynn's Annotated Diary has a hyphen next to "Frequented my club". Is there a hyphen?

No, it's a full stop, MayBea:

'Frequented my club. George stated that...'

Obviously a reference to Sir Jim's latest visit, and a rather comical misuse of 'frequented'.

Sam's a great guy, and usually super smart. But beware his Annotated Diary as he did not bother to go back to the primary source - the facsimile in Shirley's book (that can probably be picked up for thruppence) - but relied on a shoddy transcript (ironically a fake in its own right) that he found online before it was removed for breach of copyright reasons.

You get what you (don't) pay for I'm afraid.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

G'Day all

Just wondering if I've got this all right:

Most [if not all] people who have met him say Mike Couldn't have written, to drunk, not well enough educated etc.

Anne Graham later says, it's been in the family for years and I had Devereaux give it mike in the hope Mike could turn it into a diary.

To me the two don't add up.

Can anyone shed some light on the issue for me.

Thanks

Hi GUT,

You think anything adds up where the diary is concerned?

Mike could not have written the diary. For starters he uses wEiRd coMBinAshuns of uppER and lowER case letters in all the examples I have seen. He did (does?) like to dabble with creative writing, but their relationship was like Melvin Harris's was to Paul Feldman's. Not a pretty sight.

Anne's claim (which remains unsupported) was that she gave the diary to Tony Devereux, to give to Mike, in the hope that he could use it as a basis for a story. I liken it to X-Factor syndrome, where someone who can't hold a tune in a bucket is nevertheless supported by loyal family and friends and encouraged - rather unwisely - to "go for it", even though the results could only ever be cringeworthy.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi GUT,

You think anything adds up where the diary is concerned?

Mike could not have written the diary. For starters he uses wEiRd coMBinAshuns of uppER and lowER case letters in all the examples I have seen. He did (does?) like to dabble with creative writing, but their relationship was like Melvin Harris's was to Paul Feldman's. Not a pretty sight.

Anne's claim (which remains unsupported) was that she gave the diary to Tony Devereux, to give to Mike, in the hope that he could use it as a basis for a story. I liken it to X-Factor syndrome, where someone who can't hold a tune in a bucket is nevertheless supported by loyal family and friends and encouraged - rather unwisely - to "go for it", even though the results could only ever be cringeworthy.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,surely to God anybody with any sense wouldn't expect mike Barrett to do anything creative with anything so that excuse of giving it to him so he could do something with it is just not true.The story told by Mrs Barrett convientley gave the diary a history and stopped any police action.

[GUT]

Thanks For that caz and pinkmoon

It has always puzzled me just a little how those two "claims" could possibly stand together and it seems that the simplest answer is yet again the correct one, they just don't and it is more weak attempt to try and prop it up.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
Would any of you agree that Maybrick on his own and without the Diary or the watch ever coming to light, makes a credible suspect as any of the other top suspects in the case ?
The diary and watch... real or not, just get in the way.

regards.

[MayBea]

Would any of you agree that Maybrick on his own and without the Diary or the watch ever coming to light, makes a credible suspect as any of the other top suspects in the case ?
The diary and watch... real or not, just get in the way.

I would certainly agree. Means and opportunity, and the process of elimination which hasn't eliminated him, as it has Cream and D'Onston and a few others still on the list, makes him a top suspect.

I'm not the only one not working under the conviction that Maybrick is eliminated.

That's what I like about this thread. The process of elimination.

[GUT]

Hi all,
Would any of you agree that Maybrick on his own and without the Diary or the watch ever coming to light, makes a credible suspect as any of the other top suspects in the case ? The diary and watch... real or not, just get in the way.

My question would be:

Would Maybrick ever have been a suspect without the watch and diary?

[Graham]

Hi caz,surely to God anybody with any sense wouldn't expect mike Barrett to do anything creative with anything so that excuse of giving it to him so he could do something with it is just not true.The story told by Mrs Barrett convientley gave the diary a history and stopped any police action.

Hi PM,

in fairness to Mike Barrett, he did once try his hand at creative writing, stories for children I believe, but didn't get far with them. However, like you, I find it very hard to accept that the Diary came through the Graham family and was given to Devereux by Anne Barrett. It just doesn't strike true.

With regard to any supposed theft of the Diary from Battlecrease, surely if it was lifted from a skip (containing other rubbish....ha, ha) nobody would have been prosecuted for that. Maybe if it was abstracted from the actual premises of Battlecrease that would have been somewhat different in the beady eyes of the law.

Also, bear in mind that although Barrett was visited and interviewed by members of the Fraud Squad, they were not investigating his role in the sad story, but trying to establish if other major characters in the tale might be had up for fraud or attempted fraud.

And then, of course, there's the Watch....

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi PM,

in fairness to Mike Barrett, he did once try his hand at creative writing, stories for children I believe, but didn't get far with them. However, like you, I find it very hard to accept that the Diary came through the Graham family and was given to Devereux by Anne Barrett. It just doesn't strike true.

With regard to any supposed theft of the Diary from Battlecrease, surely if it was lifted from a skip (containing other rubbish....ha, ha) nobody would have been prosecuted for that. Maybe if it was abstracted from the actual premises of Battlecrease that would have been somewhat different in the beady eyes of the law.

Also, bear in mind that although Barrett was visited and interviewed by members of the Fraud Squad, they were not investigating his role in the sad story, but trying to establish if other major characters in the tale might be had up for fraud or attempted fraud.

And then, of course, there's the Watch....

Graham

Hi Graham,when you meet Mr Barrett the whole saga of the diary takes on a new meaning.I first met Mr Barrett a few years after the diary was launched he was in a terrible state due to alcohol abuse he was drinking heavily at the time the diary appeared so I can't see him been involved in any sort of scam and no one with any sense would involve him in any scam.