The Diary

[Abraham Lincoln]

i can honestly say that having almost completed my second reading of the diary that there is still that tingling thing in my mind which makes me think that no one could make that stuff up.....it just doesnt ring true that someone could sit there, especially in an age when the internet and research were known to but a few, and make that diary as contentious as it is almost 20 years on. If it is a fake then whoever wrote it deserves the Pulitzer Prize !!

You make some good points here Jason. I can't hand on heart say that the diary is a late 20th century forgery. Now I fully realise that that might make me seem gullible in some poster's eyes, but there's too much in the diary that makes you stop, ponder and wonder. I agree that the author deserves the Pulitzer Prize if it's eventually proved to be a hoax.
If the ripper did revel in playing games it's interesting to note that the first two letters combined with the last letters of Maybrick's name spell JACK. This has probably been pointed out before by someone.

kind regards,
Abe

[Carol]

Dear Everyone,
May I ask a question with regard to Steve Powell's 'Fame and Infamy' book on this thread? I would so much like us to discuss the book. I know the problems with a large part of the book and certain people, both dead and alive, being 'fingered' (but not named). My question is, is it possible for us to discuss at least the supposed origins of the Diary at the hands of Powell's friend? I'm not trying to make trouble or even excite reactions as to my 'naivety'. I genuinely want to discuss what I consider may well be the answer to nearly 20 years of uncertainty about the origins of the Diary.

Carol

[ChrisGeorge]

Well in my opinion "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," is a hoax. I don't for one minute believe that James Maybrick was the Ripper.

James Maybrick may never have seen the Diary that he allegedly wrote but this was a scene with which he would have been very familiar. The Cotton Exchange in Liverpool, in an early 20th Century postcard. The building was badly damaged in the German bombing of the city during the Second World War and had to be demolished.

[Sickert]

Hoax

Well in my opinion "The Diary of Jack the Ripper," is a hoax. I don't for one minute believe that James Maybrick was the Ripper.

[Kaz]

Only having a tiny part of the story - and from the con artist himself - is giving him all the power he needs to con you rotten. Why not take the power back by learning a lot more before putting all your eggs in this man's basket? How can you know it's not bottomless?


Love,

Caz
X

The likes of Jerrip makes con artists like Barrett exist. Nice work jer now put your bloody fuel can away.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Yes, he's been struck off. You can find the decision of the GMC at this link.

I won't go on about the science here, but it's all in the public domain and easily interpreted.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Regards,

Mark

Thanks Mark.

A very sad and serious case - the lack of insight was particularly worrying.

But in terms of con artistry, and the lasting impact it can have on trusting souls, at least Mike Barrett comes very low down on the scale. His con artistry is the type that nobody needs to take seriously, and can do little damage whether one chooses to swallow or reject it.

Hi jer,

Mike can only con you if you let him. I'm guessing you haven't read all there is to read about Mike's documented behaviour since March 1992, and are basing your belief in him as the forger or co-forger of the diary (and therefore the man with all the answers) on a small section of it to be found on casebook in the form of his 'confessions'.

Only having a tiny part of the story - and from the con artist himself - is giving him all the power he needs to con you rotten. Why not take the power back by learning a lot more before putting all your eggs in this man's basket? How can you know it's not bottomless?

I don't actually believe anything Mike Barrett has claimed to know about the diary, and won't be doing so without reliable independent verification. I suspect he's spinning a line whenever his lips move. Speculation, perhaps, but not entirely groundless.

You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but a better grasp of the facts wouldn't do them any harm. Mike's ex-wife has zero control over the diary and made it very clear to Doreen Montgomery, the literary agent Mike approached, that she didn't want any personal 'pay-out' on the back of it. Doreen took it upon herself to give her a share anyway, for their daughter's sake when the Barretts split up. In June 1994, when Mike decided to tell the papers he had masterminded and written the diary all by himself, he had just begun to see the money rolling in, so he was pissing on his own cornflakes, to coin a phrase. The money quickly stopped rolling his way after that.

Con artists don't usually devalue their biggest scams, and risk a prison sentence for their pains, by volunteering confessions for the hell of it. Their usual aim is to con their way into money and out of trouble, not the other way round. So he is the world's daftest con artist? Maybe so, but if he's also the world's most incompetent forger he managed to run rings round the boys at Scotland Yard, who never got anything on him and never will.

Love,

Caz
X

[jerrip]

Caz, how do you know I have been conned?

Do you believe anything Mike Barrett has said or do you dis-believe everything he has said.

I believe he didn't like the pay-out and looks like the ex-wife has control over the diary, so he is trying to devalue the whole scam. That's all speculation of course. There's a lot that nowadays.

Jerrip

[m_w_r]

On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found some three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children.The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted against the interests of his patients, and acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.On February 2, 2010, The Lancet retracted his 1998 publication, noting elements of the manuscript had been falsified.

Hi Caz,

Yes, he's been struck off. You can find the decision of the GMC at this link.

I won't go on about the science here, but it's all in the public domain and easily interpreted.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Regards,

Mark

[caz]

Hi Livia,

What a distressing experience for you and your granddaughter and everyone else involved. I don't know what to say, except that it just shows that not even the experts really know which experts to trust to this day.

I'm always cautious when I use Wikipedia as a source, so maybe you have information that puts the following extremely serious charges (which I just found on Wikipedia) in doubt:

On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found some three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children.The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted against the interests of his patients, and acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.On February 2, 2010, The Lancet retracted his 1998 publication, noting elements of the manuscript had been falsified.

Hi jer,

The clue is in 'con artist'. If you believe anything coming from somebody you have judged to be a con artist, I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame for being conned by his 'confessions'.

You can't believe them all, in any case, because each one contradicts the one before.

Love,

Caz
X

[Livia]

Thanks Steve.



Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The really clever scientist will always be the one who doesn't claim to know something that others don't.

Just look at how many parents are still putting other people's babies at risk by not allowing their own children to have the MMR jab as soon as possible. And all because of one doctor's absolute conviction - which has since proved false - that the jab can and does cause autism. (Autism generally shows itself in children about the same age as the MMR jab is given, so while a cause and effect presumption was perhaps understandable, there should have been far more caution exercised before ruling out the coincidental timing possibility. I believe crucial studies carried out by others went on to find that autism rates in pre-MMR days and non-MMR children are no lower than for those who have the jab.)

A decision has now been taken and this doctor has just been struck off for the damage he has caused. But really, it shouldn't ever come down to one man's unsupported power over public hearts and minds.

Love,

Caz
X

Actually Caz, Dr Wakefield has been vindicated and one of his severest critics is now on the lam with two million in pharmaceutical grant money.

Thorsen being sought

Wakefield vindicated

(My granddaughter was healthy and developing normally, reaching all her milestones. She was vaccinated on July 3rd, spiked a fever on the 4th, and became lethargic, unresponsive and lost her vocabulary in a week. She had not been exposed to any other causitive factors during that week. No one else in the household was sick. Not long after, she was diagnosed as autistic. She's thirteen and still cannot speak more than one word at a time. She suffers from GI problems (as Wakefield postulated). I KNOW her autism was caused by that innoculation. I saw it with my own eyes, as have hundreds of thousands of other families and now, the US Vaccine Injury court has agreed with them.)



So's not to hijack this thread, in my original copy of Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper The Final Solution", in the picture of Mary Jane Kelley's corpse, the initials are clearly visible on the wall behind her body. The odd thing is the picture seems to be reversed, with Kelley's face/head on the left and the initials read "MF". It was published in 1976, so make of that what you will.

[jerrip]

Caz, it's not my memory, so it must be my manners. May be I should actually read the posting etiquette. I didn't realize you could not respond to more then one post on the same subject.
As far giving the same answer, well it's the same fact, Barrett is con artist and he confessed.

Caz, calm down, mate, don't get your knickers all bunch up about my postings.

Any mis-spellings I blame on my computer, but it probably thought I was talking about milk.

jer

[caz]

"Is the dairy a fake"?

How about this, Barrett admitted it was a forgery, doesn't getting any easier then that. It's a no brainer, even a nub could figure this one out.

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html

He was a con artist who's payout didn't work to his satisfaction after he handed the fake dairy over...

...so he confessed with the hope of devaluing the dairy to exact revenge on his co-conspirators.

Jer

Hi Jer,

Your memory needs a good jog. Or is it your manners?

You already posted much the same thing on another thread, where I responded.

Here we are:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2937&page=3

And incidentally, it's not a dairy, although if Mike Barrett had created it, it would probably have had JaCK tHe RiPPeRS DaiRy on the front.

Love,

Caz
X

[jerrip]

"Is the dairy a fake"?

How about this, Barrett admitted it was a forgery, doesn't getting any easier then that. It's a no brainer, even a nub could figure this one out.

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html

He was a con artist who's payout didn't work to his satisfaction after he handed the fake dairy over to the other con artist, so he confessed with the hope of devaluing the dairy to exact revenge on his co-conspirators.

Jer

[caz]

Agreed - totally.

Science still rules. It's the human element that lets it down.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steven Russell]

Dear Caz,
While I agree that current science cannot explain everything, I do think that it is the best system and method to understand the world. Scientists will say that their view is the most likely explanation of the facts - a view which may have to be reconsidered if other facts come to light.

This is in stark contrast to other belief systems e.g. religions which claim to have all the answers already, modifying their pontifications with denial, circular logic, and pleas that it should all be interpreted symbolically whenever their superstitious mumbo-jumbo is shown to be nonsensical.

Best wishes,

Steve.