Who wrote the "Diary"

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Raven

Well if you speak very nicely to Caz or PaulB you might get some answers, answers, answers...I think they probably know more about the Diary and the Barretts than most!

All the best

Dave

True, true. I would speak nicely at any rate, Dave, believe me. I have no problem with could the diary be genuine. It could, and there are very good scientific evidences that point to that. What I cannot shake from my mind is that even if it was written at the time of the JtR scare, it doesn't make it a genuine confession. We are lead to believe that most of the JtR letters, definitely written in 1888, are not genuine letters produced by whomever JtR really was. So I'm not saying the diary is a forgery, it could be, it may not be, but there is no absolute proof in either direction.

I have Shirley's and Paul's books, and they present a compelling case. I just do not believe it impossible to forge the diary. Perhaps I would even say that it is unlikely, but not impossible.

God bless

Raven

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Also there is the little problem of neither Bernard nor Martin seeing evidence in the diary for their own books being sources. While Bernard believed Feldman had proved the diary genuine (don't know if he since changed his mind), I am pretty sure Martin remains absolutely convinced the Barretts had a hand in it in the late 80s/early 90s.

Martin does as of 3pm yesterday lol.....

I am curious as to why he feels his book would not have been a source. I know I have heard it said many times, but am curious as to the logic. I've asked him enough questions already about the blue ink.

There is great irony having someone that is totally colorblind having an argument over ink color.....but when has an utter lack of qualifications ever stopped someone giving an opinion in Diary World??

[Cogidubnus]

I think Michel Barrett's confession should be investigated more thoroughly. Maybe he forged it, or his wife, and maybe someone before Billy Grahams first reported sighting of the book. Then also, what if it is real? I don't think we know enough.

It certainly reads like something a madman would have written. But come to think of it, so did the infamous Hitler Diaries. Hummmm... questions, questions, questions...

Hi Raven

Well if you speak very nicely to Caz or PaulB you might get some answers, answers, answers...I think they probably know more about the Diary and the Barretts than most!

All the best

Dave

[RavenDarkendale]

I think Michel Barrett's confession should be investigated more thoroughly. Maybe he forged it, or his wife, and maybe someone before Billy Grahams first reported sighting of the book. Then also, what if it is real? I don't think we know enough.

It certainly reads like something a madman would have written. But come to think of it, so did the infamous Hitler Diaries. Hummmm... questions, questions, questions...

[caz]

Leaving aside the fact that the author has admitted (twice) to forging the diary...

A throwaway remark, BTCG, containing the most blatantly circular argument I have seen on the boards - ooh - since probably last week.

If it were a 'fact' that this was the diary author (and not Mike Barrett, the man who couldn't author a credible or coherent sick note) you'd be wasting your time bothering to analyse Feldman's analysis of what's inside it. Nobody would still be here to listen.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Leave my ergo alone.

It was in reference to a six-figure offer for the mythical Al Capone diary.

The Maybrick diary ain't worth fourpence.

Regards,

Simon

You are right there, old sport. It's worth at least £2, which is what I regularly offer Robert Smith to take it off his hands.

Love,

Caz
X

[Soothsayer]

"If"?

Begging the question doesn't make one rational.



Two claims were directly made:

1- Maybrick was the perpetrator.

2- He tossed the key when he was "well clear."

Leaving aside the fact that the author has admitted (twice) to forging the diary, the immediate area of the door, and thus part of the crime scene, would not be considered to be "well clear."

"Well clear" implies that one is away from the crime scene, and not just clear, but "well" clear; thus... well away.

Hence, the statement does not follow logically.

Your M.O. seems to be to one of intuition, rather than logic. I have no issue with that type of reasoning.

But the pitfall of this is that rather than interpret the data, this style lends to scuplting the data, in order to make it fit a predetermined notion.

And I think most would agree: that's not analysis.

Oh dear. How embarrassing.

This whole 'well clear' thing was Feldman's interpretation not the author of the journal.

You do realise Feldman was writing a book about the journal, yes?

So the key was said to have been found (by Barnett?). We aren't sure that that's true. That's why I brilliantly used the supposition (that's an 'if', incidentally).

After I acknowledge with my supposition the possibility that the key was never found at all, I simply illustrate that the term 'well clear' was used by someone writing about the journal not one writing the journal.

Personally, I think you're either trolling or you actually just don't get it. As the undisputed King of Trolling, I have to give you the benefit of the not inconsiderable doubt and suspect the former. Just my intuition, of course.

[BTCG]

The 'rational' amongst us will have long since spotted the flaw in your analysis, so I'll spell it out for you whilst that faculty matures a few more years ...

If - as is perfectly plausible here - the key was found in the alleyway of Miller's Court, two things would be suggested: 1) Jack may well have taken it, and 2) it would most likely have been close enough for a reasonable person to think it may have come from one of the nearby doors.

The fact that Feldman chose the throwaway (geddit?) line "and once well clear" has no bearing on the case as clearly Feldman did not know where the key was discarded (assuming, of course, that it ever was). I think you are making too great a distinction, and that you have fatally misunderstood your own argument.

I am not surprised, mind.

"If"?

Begging the question doesn't make one rational.



Two claims were directly made:

1- Maybrick was the perpetrator.

2- He tossed the key when he was "well clear."

Leaving aside the fact that the author has admitted (twice) to forging the diary, the immediate area of the door, and thus part of the crime scene, would not be considered to be "well clear."

"Well clear" implies that one is away from the crime scene, and not just clear, but "well" clear; thus... well away.

Hence, the statement does not follow logically.

Your M.O. seems to be to one of intuition, rather than logic. I have no issue with that type of reasoning.

But the pitfall of this is that rather than interpret the data, this style lends to scuplting the data, in order to make it fit a predetermined notion.

And I think most would agree: that's not analysis.

[Soothsayer]

You make, as the lawyers say, a distinction without a difference.

If one is "well clear" of a crime scene, he/she is in an area of which there can be no association... hence, the 'rational" explanation to kinding a key would be NOT to associate it with the crime scene.

The 'rational' amongst us will have long since spotted the flaw in your analysis, so I'll spell it out for you whilst that faculty matures a few more years ...

If - as is perfectly plausible here - the key was found in the alleyway of Miller's Court, two things would be suggested: 1) Jack may well have taken it, and 2) it would most likely have been close enough for a reasonable person to think it may have come from one of the nearby doors.

The fact that Feldman chose the throwaway (geddit?) line "and once well clear" has no bearing on the case as clearly Feldman did not know where the key was discarded (assuming, of course, that it ever was). I think you are making too great a distinction, and that you have fatally misunderstood your own argument.

I am not surprised, mind.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Leave my ergo alone.

It was in reference to a six-figure offer for the mythical Al Capone diary.

The Maybrick diary ain't worth fourpence.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Soothy,

Would you be interested in buying Al Capone's 1929 intimate diary, written during his stay at Philadelphia's Eastern Penitentiary?

The handwriting and signature are a bit dodgy, but don't worry about it. All the scientific ink and paper tests say the diary was written prior to 1970 and Scotland Yard's Fraud Squad are not interested in pursuing charges.

Ergo.

It's the six-figure offer of a lifetime.

I look forward to receiving your cashier's cheque.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Would have been wittier had your 'ergo' not been so badly misplaced.

The pre-1970 date and Scotland Yard's failure to find any evidence of fraud have, as you know, been pointed out by me several times, merely to counter all the self-satisfied twaddle talked about a 'bloody lousy' or 'glaringly' modern hoax, pulled off by the Barretts of Goldie Street over a wet weekend circa 1990.

A pre-1970 hoax (which, as you also know, I tend to favour over other theories) would arguably now be worth rather less than the true story, if told by your modern forgers, of how they dunnit without you or anyone else being able to prove it in two decades and counting.

This six-figure fantasy is in your mind alone, old bean. Ergo your 'ergo' does not belong here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Phil

I am not sure that any specialist knowledge was required other than reading one or two Ripper books and a book or two on the Maybrick case. That's pretty much what Melvin Harris thought, and the books by Martin Fido for the Ripper case and Bernard Ryan for Maybrick have been named as possible candidates for source material. Although of course Harris was positing a composition for the Diary of post-1988 that both those books would fit.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,

I'm not convinced that everything in the diary could have been written using just one or two ripper and one or two Maybrick books. If anyone has done a comprehensive analysis of what is and isn't in the diary versus what is and isn't in the 2-4 books suggested, I don't recall ever seeing it - which is odd if it could show beyond reasonable doubt that these were in fact the sources. In my experience, one detail that appears in both the diary and a particular source tends to be cancelled out by another detail from the same source - perhaps only a few pages away - which the diary either fails to include or apparently gets wrong. For example, if the modern ripper source clearly states where MJK's breasts were found, why does 'Sir Jim' assume (from the unreliable newspaper reports) that he left them on the table, only to recall later that he had toyed with leaving them by her feet, where one was actually found? Which source would have led our hoaxer to get it half right, but then only use it as an afterthought? Similarly, Bernard Ryan's book describes Maybrick's will and how he wrote his signature, yet no attempt was made to track it down and copy his handwriting.

Also there is the little problem of neither Bernard nor Martin seeing evidence in the diary for their own books being sources. While Bernard believed Feldman had proved the diary genuine (don't know if he since changed his mind), I am pretty sure Martin remains absolutely convinced the Barretts had a hand in it in the late 80s/early 90s.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Soothy,

What is the true character of a naysayer?

Regards,

Simon

[BTCG]

Where was the bit where he got well away before he threw the key?

You make, as the lawyers say, a distinction without a difference.

If one is "well clear" of a crime scene, he/she is in an area of which there can be no association... hence, the 'rational" explanation to kinding a key would be NOT to associate it with the crime scene.

[Soothsayer]

It was fun reading... and then I got to page 127, and it turned south.

From the book:

"At this point the diary poses a question. The police had to break into Mary Jane Kelly's room. All the newspapers reported that the key had been lost before the murder. But Joe Barnett stated that it was then found, so substantiating Maybrick's claim that he left with it. A few days after the murder, one newspaper reported that the key was now in the possession of the police. The rational explanation is that he locked the door behind him and once well clear, tossed the key away."

So, let's analyze this. Maybrick locks the door, gets well away and tosses the key. Someone happens upon the key several blocks away, and presumably says "this must be the key to Mary Jane Kelly's room, I must get it to the police."

Rational explanation, eh?

Where was the bit where he got well away before he threw the key?