Barrett and the Diary.

[Maria]

Cui Bono ?

Martin:

Who can blame them. In the end, like Cicero said: Cui Bono ?

Who profits ? Maybe they have not overlooked that fact.

Maria

[fido]

I was horrified to see the suggestion early in these posts that Robert Smith might have colluded in the diary hoax. While I think he and Feldy pushed the property unconscionably, I was the second Ripper expert he consulted (after Keith), and when I asked him what the diary's provenance was, he said sadly, "It's about as bad as it could be." Not the remark of a hoaxer! The advice Keith and I gave him at that time was that we didn't think it was genuine, but we were sure that some publisher would take it up, as there were probable sales in it. And there was no piece of such manifest twaddle that it could be blown out of the water with a single quotation.
I don't myself believe that Keith's new evidence is going to be convincing. I am absolutely positive that it exists and that Keith genuinely believes it has some merit and has totally honest and honourable reasons for respecting the confidence of whoever has put it in his hands. I've known him for 20 years and collaborated with him on books and radio programmes, and say without fear of contradiction that his integrity is irreproachable and compares very favourably with that of anyone who has ever criticized him.
The last time I saw Mike Barrett I told him of my belief that Anne planned and plotted the diary (she has the ingenuity) and he made the copy (he is capable of the spelling mistakes anad solecisms). He just gave me a crafty smile suggesting I was possibly right. Unfortunately, confirmation of anything by Mike Barrett is about as much value as a small envelope of rat's droppings.
All the best,
Martin F

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Unfortunately for you, you do need to believe Mike's miracle-research amazing library tale (just one among his many obvious lies).

If you don't, then you have absolutely no explanation for how Mike knew the same five word line that was excerpted amidst prose in his diary was also excerpted amidst prose in only one other book in human history, a book which only Mike was able to identify.

Of course, there's always the obvious explanation.

--John

[caz]

Omlor,

Unfortunately for you, I don't need to believe anything that Mike said, but you do. I'm not the one who needs Crashaw to have found his way into the diary from Mike's copy of the Sphere book.

If he lied about obtaining his copy before the diary emerged (and there is plenty of evidence as well as your 'established precedent' to suggest that he did lie, and nothing at all to support your belief that he didn't), then you are up Crashaw creek without a paddle.

Mike saw you coming in September 1994.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Thank you.

I only asked.

Graham

[Omlor]

Graham,

Are you seriously asking for a list of Mike Barrett's lies. He's dying of some mysterious illness? There are secret agents out to kill him (or was it he works as a secret agent)? And then, of course, since he said he wrote the diary and he said that he didn't write the diary, we know for an absolute certainty that he's an established liar, don't we?

Yes, Mike is a liar. There is plenty of established precedent. And I'm very content in saying that I do not believe his most incredible and amazing story -- that he simply walked into a library with only five words (two of which were O of of), words he'd never seen before, allegedly knowing nothing about them, and just happened to find the only book ever published that had those very same five words from the whole history of writing in English excerpted and cited amidst prose as it is in the diary (the diary that he gave to everyone).

Yes, I'm happy being the one who does NOT believe Mike's incredible tale (one among many). I'd hate to be the one relying on Mike telling the truth when he recited this miraculous tale of research and discovery to make my case. Fortunately, that's Caroline's position, not mine.

I also love the twisted logic that describes Keith Skinner blabbing in a public forum about alleged evidence that he claimed to have and then refusing to show the public that evidence and refusing even to explain why he won't show anyone the evidence as "a straight answer."

Only in Diary World could such an obviously mysterious, corkscrewed response and dance of hinting and evasion be considered "straight."

Of course, that's how things have gone here for years and years and years, whether it's the question of getting these things thoroughly and properly tested or the question of hiding secret squirrel evidence and not even offering a reason why it must be hidden or the charming faith in the words of Mike Barrett only when it is convenient -- it's always the dance of the delay, the excuse, the evasion, the game playing, the temporarily expedient when it comes to this hoax.

And that's why the debate goes on, and that's why new editions of the nonsense can still come out and the game can continue.

Here comes July.

--John

[Graham]

Caroline,

Thank you once again for your testament of faith in Mike Barrett's amazing and incredible story.

It's good to know who you believe.

I'm completely comfortable in saying that I believe Mike lied.

And I believe I have plenty of established precedent to support this conclusion.

I'm glad the difference between us here is so clearly and precisely drawn.

--John

And your established precedent is...?

Graham

[Omlor]

Caroline,

Thank you once again for your testament of faith in Mike Barrett's amazing and incredible story.

It's good to know who you believe.

I'm completely comfortable in saying that I believe Mike lied.

And I believe I have plenty of established precedent to support this conclusion.

I'm glad the difference between us here is so clearly and precisely drawn.

--John

[caz]

So is it true that Barrett definitely placed an ad for an old diary sometime after he had given the hoax one to his publishers?

And is a discussion of the watch in any of the "Diary" books? There doesn't seem to a lot about it on here other than the scientific tests.

Hi Victor,

Apologies for the delay in my response.

No, the ad was placed shortly before the diary was first taken to Rupert Crew, the literary agency which found a publisher for it.

Yes, the watch is discussed in every diary book that has been published to date, as far as I am aware.

Caz,

don't know why you've taken against me recently - but who cares. Im sure you are entitled to your opinion. I was saying I was thinking Keith might have a reason not to say something - and that if he was doing the research I thought he was he might have found some actual evidence and not be talking nonsense as was being implied (but legally be unable to produce the evidence which would belong to Bruce). Now if i've got that wrong I apologise, sometimes the grapevine isnt in full wroking order.

I am not trying to offend Keith - as I say - I like the guy.

I wish he would have thought before he spoke though. I wish i had been there in all honesty - cos i would have asked him! (Unfortunately at the time (my birthday!) I was throwing up somewhere adn unable to eat having lost nearly a stone.)

And I wish that if is remarks have genuinely been misinterpreted (this seems possible) he would just say what he meant. Then we wouldnt be having this 'conversation' would we because we would know.

Unless, you really think he is the kind of person to talk about evidence that he knows would never see the light of day - but as you point out - you know him better than me - so maybe my thinking that was actually unlikely by now was wrong in your opinion?

I find it hard to tell with you.

Maybe its because you seem to spend your time trying to be sarcastic towards me lately.

Either way, no offence intended
Have a pleasant evening

see you soon

Jenni

Hi Jen,

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic towards you. I didn't fully understand what you were suggesting in that previous post and was wondering where your information was coming from. I realise now (I think) that you were merely thinking out loud and considering possibilities that were not based on anything coming directly from a source who would be in a position to know the answers.

Hi All,

I am happy to repeat the answer already given: that, as Keith himself explained afterwards, he was giving a spontaneous straight answer to a spontaneous straight question at the trial last May, concerning his investigations into the diary's origins. Most people seem to have accepted that as the only answer they can reasonably expect to the question: 'why say anything at all?'

One can just imagine the outcry in certain quarters had Keith responded that he could not say anything about his progress (which would not have been true because he could and he did), or that it wasn't appropriate to say anything (which would have been called evasive); and a simple "no comment" would have been worse still. There would have been demands for an explanation and accusations of teasing at the very least, if not howls of protest that he had implied progress had been made but was refusing to say what that progress was.

Caroline still can't explain how Mike knew the source of the five word quote and could identify the only other book anyone has ever seen that excerpts it and cites it (other than the diary).

Yes I can, John. But I can't help it if you still call that explanation an impossible miracle, without even having seen the layout of the library concerned, and the limited number of shelves concerned, and the limited number of books on those shelves, which Mike had unlimited time to browse through, and which included three Sphere volumes containing the five words in question - five little words that didn't travel at all well, if you believe they were copied into the diary from this particular title.

Simple. They weren't working together in 1992.

Hi RJ,

No, they certainly weren't. It's a shame Melvin thought otherwise. He claimed that while Mike and Anne didn't actually forge the diary, they did 'place' it for the person who did the hard bit. So it should still be a wonder to you why the forger let Mike do the placing and the supplying of such an awful provenance - especially if you think Devereux had any tangible links with the real culprit. Surely a dead person with no links whatsoever could have been found, if nobody involved could come up with a better basic plan?

Or do you think the forger was in such a tearing hurry to get the diary to a publisher before the ink was dry that he was happy for Mike to pick on the first dead person to come to mind to provide a provenance, no matter if it was totally implausible and transparent and could lead straight back to the forger himself?

Have you really thought this all through properly yet yourself?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Hi Caz,

So there's a 5 word quote in the Diary that is also in a Sphere Book.
The quote is from a poet called Crashaw and was in print in 1866.
Barrett had a copy of the Sphere Book in 1994.
Quite a number of copies of the book, including Barrett's, "fall open" at the quote.
And that's the end of what we definitely know.

So is it true that Barrett definitely placed an ad for an old diary sometime after he had given the hoax one to his publishers?

And is a discussion of the watch in any of the "Diary" books? There doesn't seem to a lot about it on here other than the scientific tests.

[rjpalmer]

If Anne was also involved, it almost beggars belief that she would have thought anyone would be satisfied with that. Why the hell didn’t they work out between them in 1992 that a simple ‘in the family’ provenance would instantly be a hundred times more acceptable?

Simple. They weren't working together in 1992.

[Graham]

Hi Catvance.

The Ripper 'Diary' really isn't a diary in the strict meaning of the word - apart from the very last page there are no dates given. In many respects it's just a series of 'mumblings' committed to paper, with here and there a solid fact thrown in as though to tempt the reader to make an identification. When it was first published, I read it and the books by Feldman and Harrison, and I was 99.9% convinced that the mystery of the Ripper had been solved. Trouble is, the Diary tells us nothing about any of the murders that we didn't know already, and there is absolutely nothing to link James Maybrick to the murder of 5 (give or take) East End prostitutes.

There is a remote possibility that the Diary may have been written not long after the Maybrick Case as a means of getting Florie Maybrick out of gaol, but there are those who would argue (for reasons you must know) that this is not possible. Personally, I'm still not 100% convinced of the impossibility of this.

I think Paul Feldman (and maybe others) did an ace PR job in identifying Maybrick with the Ripper Murders - top-hat, twirlable moustache, a toff, wife-beater, all-round rotter, etc. But there just ain't no proof. (Nor is there against Druitt, Kosminsky and a few others that spring to mind).

Cheers,

Graham

[Omlor]

All this talk...

But...

Caroline still can't explain how Mike knew the source of the five word quote and could identify the only other book anyone has ever seen that excerpts it and cites it (other than the diary).

There's still no explanation for why Keith Skinner blabbed in public about having secret squirrel evidence and then not only refused to show it to the public but also refused even to explain why he wouldn't back up his claims with his evidence.

The legendary "ongoing investigation" remains eternally "ongoing," but it hasn't produced a single word, single theory, or single piece of published evidence.

Both of the hoaxes remain kept away from qualified scientists, not even shown to them so that they might at least tell us what is and is not possible concerning testing with the latest available technology.

And the Diary World dancing goes on.

Another day, but nothing new.

See you all later,

--John

[catvance]

i admit just the more common ones, the book itself, the maybrick websites, newspaper articles and the dissertations on here. like i said, it's the little things that really nag at you. it's easy to say it's a hoax and i was one of those when it came out. i thought it would just be a fun read, but i really got hooked. as an aside, a friend of mine found a diary of a civil war soldier and spent several years figuring out who wrote it. he didn't put his name in it and he made only casual references to other people so it was quite a challenge. it reminded me when i read it that diaries are only meant for the person who wrote them and no one else.

[Jenni Shelden]

ps i don't require concrete proof for beliefs - I require it for facts, hence the sentenced started I believe rather than I know for a fact.