Barrett and the Diary.

[Chris George]

I think the last thing the Maybrick Diary needs is to be decided by 'the court of history.' The thing ought to be resolved while Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et. al., are still drawing breath. Half the problem with 'Ripper Studies' is that no one went around and quizzed Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and Littlechld circa 1912--ie., while they still had vocal chords.

Hi Roger

This assumes that Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, really know something about the Diary and the scratches in the watch. Certain of the actions and statements of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham seem suspicious but couldn't it be that they themselves were merely trying to grapple with the meaning of a mysterious document? Anne's "in the family for years" claim could have been just to better explain the Diary's origins than the pub story did and to stop Feldman's pestering. And Albert Johnson might be innocently unaware of how the scratches came to be in the watch.

Similarly, the other part of your post assumes that the police officials involved in the Ripper case really did know some significant details as to who the killer was. Or were they just as much in the dark as anyone? That is, including even Sir Robert Anderson who as Littlechild wrote only claimed he knew the answer to the Ripper mystery.

Chris

[Gatsby]

I think that many of the diary supporters erroneously assume that the "critics" will never change their mind. I believe the diary is a hoax, but if some piece of verifiable evidence were to see the light of day, or if a detailed analysis of the original diary were completed that proved it's authenticity; I would change my mind.

You can't simply put something out there and expect everyone to believe it. Especially if there is considerable doubt created by the very article itself (see: Poste House).

Show me something that I can verify that explains that discrepancy, or allow the original diary to be scrutinized scientifically. If the people in possession of the diary believe so strongly that it is real, there is no reason why they shouldn't want to prove that. An innocent man fights to prove his innocence, he doesn't simply say "I didn't do it" and offer no further evidence... and he certainly doesn't say "I didn't do it," then "I did it," then "I didn't do it."

None of the critics have invented anything to discredit the diary, they have only pointed to problems (that have yet to be clarified by supporters) with passages within the diary, and monitored the ever changing stories that surround the "discovery" of the diary.

It is on the pro-diary camp to prove the diary is real, otherwise there is only one logical conclusion...

[rjpalmer]

I think the last thing the Maybrick Diary needs is to be decided by 'the court of history.' The thing ought to be resolved while Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et. al., are still drawing breath. Half the problem with 'Ripper Studies' is that no one went around and quizzed Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and Littlechld circa 1912--ie., while they still had vocal chords.

[Victoria]

It does indeed John,

seem simple enough, though I suspect there is nothing much
to tell .. an exaggeration of someting of little consequence.

And in your words,

"..... at this point, it all seems to be moving towards a predictable
anti-climax".

what a pity,

Victoria

[Omlor]

Hi Victoria,

Yes, it now seems clear that there is considerable room for doubt about what Keith has and what he believes and even what he meant, especially if one reads the latest posts on the subject elsewhere. You suggest that Keith be asked to clarify his statement. You suggest that he might just "put an end to all the speculations."

And you write:

"Seems simple enough to me."


Indeed. It does, doesn't it?

--John

[Victoria]

Part of quote,

Hi Victoria,

Well, the fun never stops.

Here's Paul Begg again today doing the inevitable Diary World "let's all just wait until time reveals all" waltz. It's a dance as old as Paul Feldman's original book of nonsense and apparently it's still as popular as ever among those like Keith who claim to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the diary came from but who refuse to put up the goods.

Paul writes,

Again, nobody really expects their words to be wrung of every nuance of meaning or, in some cases, to be twisted into meanings they never intended, so who knows what Keith really meant? Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate. Or we can wait until all is revealed. Since the diary is not and cannot be considered as having a bearing on the historical events, I'm happy to wait until time, er (I never thought I'd say this) reveals all.


By the way, apparently the simple logical proposition "Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate." does not hold true in weird and wonderful Diary World. Here, although Keith is indeed "around to ask," we are still left to speculate. After all, that's what they've been doing this whole past week over there, ever since Paul asked about me.

And so we are urged to wait.

Amazing,

--John

John,

In all this, and I do realize that this is 'weird and wonderful diary world' ..
and not how logical people operate, is there any good, or real reason why ..
someone cannot just ask Keith now to clarify his statements and put
an end to all the speculations?
Seems simple enough to me.

If Caroline is reading this, she would be the logical choice.
We could use your statements of 'delusions of granduer' as enticement,
for her to respond.

quote,
"How delightful. If only I had realized how much power I truly had around here!"

and,
"The information concerning the existence of the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence all stems from me.

Wow".

worth a try,
Victoria

[Ally]

I am going to agree that it is completely uncouth and cowardly for them to refuse to allow you to participate on their Maybrick boards while continually referencing your name. Especially since every time they do so, you of course, feel like you just have to comment over here, which is irritating to put it mildly.

They should either shut up about you, or let you in. One of the two, because the way they are doing it now is obnoxious.

[Omlor]

Well, it seems I am the topic of discussion again elsewhere concerning Keith Skinnner's claim, first made in Liverpool and then repeated in a published e-mail to Caroline reposted above, that he has secret squirrel information that would prove the diary came from the real James Maybrick's old house.

This morning I read an amazing account of things from Paul Begg:

Now, the existance of this information appears to stem from John Omlor citing second- and third-hand something Keith had said in Liverpool...

Imagine that!

The "existance" of the information concerning the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence "stems from" me!

I did it!

How delightful. If only I had realized how much power I truly had around here!

Never mind Caroline Morris bringing up the consequences of "the Battlecrease evidence" over and over again in previous discussions and claiming that it lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook." Never mind Chris Jones claiming that many people at the goofy trial voted to convict James as the Ripper because Keith said he had evidence that would prove that the diary came from the real Jim's old house. Never mind Keith himself reaffirming to Caroline that he meant what he said.

Nope.

The information concerning the existence of the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence all stems from me.

Wow.

Well, if that's true then perhaps it falls to me to set the record straight. I've never seen any such evidence. I have no reason to believe it will convince anyone of anything. In fact, I've never seen any real evidence of any sort that even remotely proves that this ridiculous diary is anything except what the text tells us it is-- a cheap modern hoax.

Since I'm apparently responsible for the information about what Keith said in Liverpool, there is obviously no reason to take any of it seriously.

Unless, that is, Paul is simply wrong.

Either way, this is getting more and more bizarre and the status of any alleged evidence linking the diary to the real James Maybrick's house is becoming less and less a fixed or reliable idea.

Of course, Paul could always simply write to me and ask me where I heard all this silliness about Keith having secret squirrel evidence that he won't show anyone and whether or not he announced its existence in a public forum and yet refused even to explain precisely why it can't be seen.

But I suppose talking about it all and about me elsewhere on the net is more fun for him.

Fair enough.

Happy Mother's day everyone,

--John

[Omlor]

Hi Victoria,

Well, the fun never stops.

Here's Paul Begg again today doing the inevitable Diary World "let's all just wait until time reveals all" waltz. It's a dance as old as Paul Feldman's original book of nonsense and apparently it's still as popular as ever among those like Keith who claim to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the diary came from but who refuse to put up the goods.

Paul writes,

Again, nobody really expects their words to be wrung of every nuance of meaning or, in some cases, to be twisted into meanings they never intended, so who knows what Keith really meant? Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate. Or we can wait until all is revealed. Since the diary is not and cannot be considered as having a bearing on the historical events, I'm happy to wait until time, er (I never thought I'd say this) reveals all.


By the way, apparently the simple logical proposition "Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate." does not hold true in weird and wonderful Diary World. Here, although Keith is indeed "around to ask," we are still left to speculate. After all, that's what they've been doing this whole past week over there, ever since Paul asked about me.

And so we are urged to wait.

Once again.

Just like all those other times, regarding everything from testing the things properly using the latest technologies to the always deferred production of the "old hoax" theory to the outcome of the so-called "ongoing investigation" (wherein the word "ongoing" is obviously being used as it is in the phrase "the ongoing conflict in the Middle East" -- to mean "interminable").

But at least we have this to keep us comfortable while we wait:

"...so who knows what Keith really meant?"

Amazing,

--John

[Victoria]

As Omlor's been banned from the Forums I guess he needs somewhere to continue his interminable, tiresome blatherings, but let me ask anyone who still maintains the slightest interest in the frigging Diary and who happens by some chance to read this:

DOES ANYONE SUBSCRIBING TO THESE THREADS SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES MAYBRICK?

Anyone?

Graham

Certainly not I Graham, and I'm sure that goes for virtually everyone.
Steve has just posted a picture of 'the house' where it really was written.

As for John Omlor .. his style is far from tiresome, it is my type of humour
makes this place a bit interesting.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously" ..... Oscar Wilde

cheers,
Victoria

[Omlor]

Graham,

Despite your provocative adjectives, I'll be civil.

The answer to your question is no.

But two days ago, without my having said anything to him anywhere, Paul Begg specifically named me and asked why I was going around saying that Keith Skinner claimed to have secret squirel evidence that would prove in a court of law that the diary could only have come from the real James Maybrick's old house.

I have now provided the written record and the arguments and the citations to demonstrate that I was saying this because that's exactly what was reported here by Caroline Morris among others (she went so far as to say this secret evidence would let all potential modern forgers "off the hook").

Now I see that the discussion of what Keith meant is deteriorating into a morass of clouded speculation and contradictory memories and it is beginning to appear that the so called secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence isn't likely to show up and prove anything at all about the diary's origins anytime soon.

Of course, many people suspected that this would all end in yet another classic Diary World two-step, an anti-climax of typical proportions, in line with other claims about the diary's origins, like those of IKJ and Steve Powell.

So all I have done here has been to address, once my name was mentioned, why I had earlier written what I had (it was based on sound and now accurately reproduced reports) and then chronicle what seems to be happening to the myth of the Battlecrease evidence these days.

All the available evidence still tells us these artifacts are worthless modern hoaxes.

There is still nothing new, then, and still nothing real except for the revisionist history now taking place elsewhere that for some reason began on a forum I have nothing to do with and yet had my name attached to it.

We'll have to wait to see who is right, Caroline or Paul. But in the end I suspect the long term result can already be predicted based on the passing of so very many years.

All the best,

--John

[Graham]

As Omlor's been banned from the Forums I guess he needs somewhere to continue his interminable, tiresome blatherings, but let me ask anyone who still maintains the slightest interest in the frigging Diary and who happens by some chance to read this:

DOES ANYONE SUBSCRIBING TO THESE THREADS SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES MAYBRICK?

Anyone?

Graham

[Omlor]

Hi Mouseketeers,

Just for fun, here's Paul Begg's latest version of what Keith might have meant concerning the secret squirrel "Battlecrease evidence" :

Since Keith does not disclose information without permission to do so, it is to be assumed that if Keith said the diary came from Battlecrease House then he was at liberty to do so and that in all probability it did. The alternative is that he didn’t actually say it did at all, and that was the impression I received at the time. I thought Keith had made the point that inferences can be wrongly drawn from documentary material and that whenever possible one should try to uncover the facts, and that by way of example he said that if ‘I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House.’ Whether or not he meant it to be inferred that it did is open to question. I’ve never thought he did. I could be wrong.

"Wrongly drawn." In other words, Paul interprets Keith as saying that to infer that the diary came from Battlecrease from the evidence Keith has might in fact be a mistake, might be wrong.

Of course, Caroline has already told us all that this same evidence lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook" and so she responds to Paul with the following delightfully obtuse explanation:

If Keith was making the point that inferences can be wrongly drawn from documentary material and that whenever possible one should try to uncover the facts, his example was presumably one he had brought with him as part of the talk, eg the details of Mike's advert for a Victorian diary, rather than what he only said in response to a direct question put to him on the spot. When we are all dead and gone the only 'facts' that can be uncovered will come from documentary evidence of one sort or another, including everything left behind by people like Keith. So I took his point to be more that inferences can be prematurely, or wrongly drawn, from only having part of the picture to consider.

I can see how you got the impression that Keith's reference to the Battlecrease material was made in the context of wrong inferences sometimes being drawn from documentation. But in the context of all Keith's documentary evidence being available to a future court of history, which will give the jury as big a picture as Keith has himself, there is no risk of anyone concluding that the diary came out of Battlecrease if it didn't, because the same evidence that would have told Keith that it didn't would be in there with all the other material (if you see what I mean).



Uh, yeah. So this is the sort of stuff we are now being told about the alleged "Battlecrease evidence." This is the way it is now being discussed by at least one of those who claims to be "in the know."

It sure is looking less and less like Keith is going to be proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt concerning the diary's origins anytime soon, if ever.

And meanwhile, now the owner of the watch is trying to sell it.

And elsewhere Caroline actually has the temerity to argue that by withholding his alleged evidence Keith is doing the "diary critics" a favor! I suppose the same would go for IKJ and Steve Powell too, since neither of them have backed up their public claims about the diary's origins with any real evidence either.

This game just keeps getting stranger.

And still all the evidence we've seen points without exception to the diary being a cheap modern hoax written after the police list it cites three specific times is made available to the public and after the Poste House becomes the Poste House and all the rest.

Still, I wonder who is right about what Keith said (or meant), Paul or Caroline?

Either way, at this point, it all seems to be moving towards a predictable anti-climax.

Enjoying the warm summer days,

--John

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Gideon

i heard that too. I think that Keith is helping Bruce (for money) with his research make of that wahat you will!!!

[Gideon Fell]

I read an article few years back where it stated that Bruce Robinson was unmasking Michael Maybrick as Jack the Ripper.