Barrett and the Diary.

[Victoria]

A woefully predictable, sad, fun game to watch

part quote, from John,

"So there we have it, even in Keith's own words. And now it's May again. Will the secret squirrel "documents" ever see the light of day? Will the goods ever be put up? Will there ever even be an honest explanation as to why they are being withheld? Will IKJ ever put up his secret squirrel evidence? Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims? Will any of these people actually come forward and show the world that they can back up what they say? Will the diary and the watch ever even be shown to qualified experts so that we might at least learn what is possible in terms of testing using the latest technologies?

Based on the passing of previous years, I think the answer to all the these questions has by now become woefully predictable.

It's a sad game, even if it is sometimes fun to watch."

All the best,

--John[/QUOTE]

More interesting inside information for us to ponder John .........

Cannot answer any of these above questions, think you have answered
them yourself with "woefully predictable" ..
however ...
"Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims"?

This one may very well prove to be different, keep an open mind ...

Truly ...
Victoria

[Omlor]

Thanks Victoria,

Of course, over on that other site, where they know I am unable to respond, they are now talking about me and what I've posted here. What an odd way to do things.

In any case, lest people have forgotten what was originally reported concerning the great Battlecrease evidence that Caroline herself has promised will let all modern forgers "off the hook," here are some of the original messages from that Casebook discussion, sent to me by a friend who saw what being said over at the other site and wanted me to have the record:

****************************************


Keith has confirmed with me that the essence of what he said was: ‘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’. He also said that there are no legal proceedings pending.

Regarding Bruce Robinson (hi Cally ), Keith said that he is not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of his services. He said that this book has nothing to do with the diary, which Bruce considers to be a fake. He also said that the investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

caz 23rd May 2007, 10:25 AM


__________________________________________________ ______


However, speaking to people after the Trial, one of the key things that persuaded some of them to vote guilty was the assertion during Keith Skinner’s talk that he was 100% certain that the Diary was linked to Battlecrease. This seemed to imply that the Diary was actually written by James Maybrick, though of course Keith did not actually say that. Indeed, rather confusingly, Keith also said that his colleague, Bruce Robinson, believes 100% that the diary is a fraud.


23rd May 2007, 12:12 PM
Chris Jones
__________________________________________________ ______


Caz - just to make it clear, Keith actually made this statement twice, once when he originally said it and later to clarify what he said for the sake of Jeremy Beadle who obviously misinterpreted it. I copied it down the second time (because obviously the first time I didn't know he was going to say it). What I have quoted has, at most, one or two words incorrect from what he said on that second occasion, because I was writing down each word as he said it.

23rd May 2007, 05:26 PM
ash

__________________________________________________ ______


I don’t recall if the two statements Keith made at the event were identical, word for word, but I do remember quite clearly that he used the word ‘jury’.

However, because I didn’t want to risk getting this wrong myself, I didn’t post until I received an email from Keith himself, from which I was able to post the above version, using his own words written two days after the event (hence the quote marks).

I’m sorry that was the best I could do in the circumstances. But I’m hoping that one of the people actually recording the talks will be able to confirm word for word what Keith said on Sunday.

Here again is the information Keith emailed to me, this time using only direct quotes (which can be compared for accuracy with my previous post):

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Skinner
To: Caroline Morris
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:15 PM

I am not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of my services.

Bruce's book has nothing to do with the Diary which he considers to be a fake.

The investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

There are no legal proceedings pending. The essence of what I said was 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.

Keith

24th May 2007, 12:25 PM
caz


********************************************

So there we have it, even in Keith's own words. And now it's May again. Will the secret squirrel "documents" ever see the light of day? Will the goods ever be put up? Will there ever even be an honest explanation as to why they are being withheld? Will IKJ ever put up his secret squirrel evidence? Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims? Will any of these people actually come forward and show the world that they can back up what they say? Will the diary and the watch ever even be shown to qualified experts so that we might at least learn what is possible in terms of testing using the latest technologies?

Based on the passing of previous years, I think the answer to all the these questions has by now become woefully predictable.

It's a sad game, even if it is sometimes fun to watch.

All the best,

--John

[Victoria]

It just keeps getting better

"does Keith have information showing that the diary really did come from Battlecrease House or doesn't he?"

Now then....

Anyone want to bet that we never get a simple, clear and straightforward answer to this perfectly legitimate question?

Anyone want to bet that all we get is more dancing and game playing?

And what if Paul is right? What if all along, the "unstated inference" behind Keith's announcement was that the Battlecrease evidence shows us, in fact, that the diary "didn't come from there"?

Wouldn't that be just what you expect from all of this?

Wouldn't that be just par for the course here in Diary World?

Wouldn't it be perfect?

--John

Yes John, it would be just what one would expect,
and it would be perfect .....

just like your clear, well worded, good humoured, update on 'life'
in Diary World ..
Thanks for keeping it in it's right perspective.
Very enjoyable, lightens the day.

Victoria

[Omlor]

It just keeps getting better.

Now, a full year after the fact, Paul Begg offers the following version of events concerning Keith Skinner's announcement about the famed "Battlecrease evidence."

"He did not say that the diary came from Battlecrease House, he said only that that would be a conclusion drawn from documents in his possession - and in the context of his talk the unstated inference is that it didn't come from there."

That's right. It did not come from there!

Of course, Caroline had to object to this remarkable version of events. And she did. Which prompted Paul to ask the simple and obvious and straightforward question:

"does Keith have information showing that the diary really did come from Battlecrease House or doesn't he?"

Now then....

Anyone want to bet that we never get a simple, clear and straightforward answer to this perfectly legitimate question?

Anyone want to bet that all we get is more dancing and game playing?

And what if Paul is right? What if all along, the "unstated inference" behind Keith's announcement was that the Battlecrease evidence shows us, in fact, that the diary "didn't come from there"?

Wouldn't that be just what you expect from all of this?

Wouldn't that be just par for the course here in Diary World?

Wouldn't it be perfect?

--John

[Omlor]

Hello Diary World Mousketeers,

A year has passed since Keith Skinner announced in public that he has secret squirrel evidence that would prove that the diary came from the real James Maybrick's old house but that, for some unspecified reason, he wouldn't produce that evidence in order to support his claim. For a full year we've seen Caroline Morris repeatedly remind us about "the Batlecrease Evidence" and tell us, among other things, that it lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook." A full year has zoomed by without anyone actually putting up the goods and now, lo and behold, it appears we are perhaps entering a new phase of the old Diary World bait and switch game.

Putting aside for the moment that neither the watch nor the diary are likely even to be shown to qualified experts with access to the latest technologies so that they might at least tell us what is and is not possible concerning testing these dubious artifacts; putting aside the endless delays and deferrals and excuses for not ever actually getting anything done with either of these things; we can if we look hard enough now see the beginning of the disintegration of the "Battlecrease evidence" right before our eyes.

Could it be that this too will turn out to be a big "nothing much"? Can it be that this too will be just an overplayed rhetorical promise that turns out to be a "well, it might mean this or it might mean that but it really tells us nothing for sure"? Could it be that like IKJ and Steve Powell, Keith isn't really going to be able to prove anything after all?

There is new reason at least to wonder.

On another site, no less than Paul Begg offers the following eyewitness revision to the history that was reported a year ago both here and elsewhere and was supported later even by Caroline herself.

Here's part of Paul's latest request to Caroline Morris:


"And why is Omlor now claiming that Keith said he had material that would prove to a court of law that the diary came from Battlecrease House. I was there and I had dinner with Keith that evening and I discussed that statement with him and my memory is that what he said was that he had information from which future Ripper researchers would conclude that the diary came from Battlecrease House. He neither said the diary came from there, nor that it didn't, simply that the material he possessed could lead (perhaps wrongly) to that conclusion. Has anyone else actually asked Keith what he meant?"



"perhaps wrongly"

What?

So after all that, is this what we're finally going to get?

If so, I won't be surprised.

This is just the way this whole affair has played out from the beginning.

The thing is an obvious hoax. The text itself tells us over and over that it's most likely a modern hoax. No one has ever been able to produce any hard evidence of any sort that it is anything other than a cheap modern hoax.

Can it be that even this whole last year has turned out to be yet another moment of false promises and false hope and false warnings about the power of the secret squirrel evidence to exonerate all potential modern forgers?

Or has Paul just got it wrong?

Don't you love this ridiculous farce? It's been going on for fifteen years now and and it's produced at least three silly and chatty and gossipy and randomly speculative amateurish books and at the beginning it put more than a few pounds in the pockets of the liars that brought it forward (I have the receipts if anyone wants to see them), but in the end it's all been and continues to be just a bad game being played around an obvious hoax.

And there's still no end in sight.

Enjoy the day,

--John


"perhaps wrongly" -- I love that.

[Graham]

Exactly--if the diary were written by a poetic type he or she would remember the quote from school, or readings, or whatever, not by page number from one particular volume that no one else has ever heard of.

Of course it's always possible that Anne had that sort of memory of the quote, and Michael's only contact with it was helping her look it up. But Michael also was able to point to the ink, (unless I'm mistaken--I guess the ink issue is still being debated) which gives two indicators that he was at least involved in the production. And in his confession, he claims he wrote it but that Anne did the actual handwriting.

So perhaps he is exaggerating his role, but there seems to be a strong case that he was present at the birth of the thing.

This thing just keeps on and on going round and round and round...


Mike says he was given the Diary by Tony Devereux, who died shortly afterwards but whose daughters swear that he, Tony, never owned the thing.....

Anne Barrett says she was given the Diary by her dad and passed it to Devereux to pass it to Mike so he, Mike, could 'do something with it', like make a fortune writing a book....God....

Then Mike says he wrote it...then he says he didn't...then he says he did...and so forth....and so on.....

Then Steve Powell crops up to say that his mate Steven Park wrote it in Australia and gave it to Anne who, etc, etc., etc.....

Then it's suggested that Mike thought it all up in the first place and got Anne to write it, but Anne's handwriting is nothing like that of the Diary....

Then someone says the writing is that of a Gerard Kane of Liverpool...

Then...oh, sod it. I'm going to fetch another drink.

Cheers,

Graham

[Christine]

Christine,
By what I said .. "as Crashaw was probably 'not his cup of tea", I was
implying that he was most likely not the only person responsible for
producing this hoax diary.
Now John has said that he knew the exact page etc etc .. I find that
a bit unusual, I have favourite quotes but I could not tell you an exact
page number etc .. I'm sure most people are the same.
That exact remembering could well be someone with something to hide ..
ie 'have to remember because I wrote it .. it all came from me' getting the story right,
type of thing.

Victoria

Exactly--if the diary were written by a poetic type he or she would remember the quote from school, or readings, or whatever, not by page number from one particular volume that no one else has ever heard of.

Of course it's always possible that Anne had that sort of memory of the quote, and Michael's only contact with it was helping her look it up. But Michael also was able to point to the ink, (unless I'm mistaken--I guess the ink issue is still being debated) which gives two indicators that he was at least involved in the production. And in his confession, he claims he wrote it but that Anne did the actual handwriting.

So perhaps he is exaggerating his role, but there seems to be a strong case that he was present at the birth of the thing.

[Graham]

Speaking of IKJ, has he been heard from recently? Anyone have any info?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victoria]

Well, if the poems were "not his cup of tea" doesn't that make it more likely that he would have gone to a shop and looked through some old books until he found something he liked, without bothering to find out whether or not his choice was obscure?

Christine,
By what I said .. "as Crashaw was probably 'not his cup of tea", I was
implying that he was most likely not the only person responsible for
producing this hoax diary.
Now John has said that he knew the exact page etc etc .. I find that
a bit unusual, I have favourite quotes but I could not tell you an exact
page number etc .. I'm sure most people are the same.
That exact remembering could well be someone with something to hide ..
ie 'have to remember because I wrote it .. it all came from me' getting the story right,
type of thing.

Victoria

[Omlor]

Christine,

Not only that. Mike Barrett was the only person able to tell everyone where that specific line could be found excerpted and cited in another modern source as it was in the diary. Only Mike was able to do that. That's the same Mike who first gave everyone the fake diary without any reliable or verifiable provenance whatsoever. Only he could identify for everyone a source for the single cited line (despite having allegedly only five words he'd supposedly never seen before out of all the words ever written in English to go on, two of which were "O" and "of"). So basically Mike gets handed three meaningful words (costly intercourse death) and out of the entire history of writing only he is mysteriously able to tell everyone precisely where those very words can be found excerpted and cited like in his diary -- a source dated to the 1980s, yes around the same time as the Ripper centenary and the Maybrick case centenary with all its accompanying press and yes, that's right, also around the very same time as the police list the diary cites three separate times first becomes available to the public and after the Poste House (named exactly and precisely in the book) first becomes the Poste House and yes, not long before the diary itself first appears.

A truly remarkable set of amazing coincidences. Unless...

And not only was Mike (the same Mike who first produced the dodgy book for everyone to see) the only person able to tell everyone where the quote could be found; but to this day no one has ever offered a remotely believable explanation for how he knew such a thing.

Unless, of course, one is willing to believe a miracle story Mike told amidst a whole slew of outright lies.

But surely no one would be so stupid and gullible as to do that, would they?

Then again, this is Diary World. so I suppose there might still be some out there...

Strange, but all true,

--John

PS: On the bright side, at least this give us a chance to laugh once again at the obvious silliness of this whole Diary affair. Meanwhile, IKJ and Steve Powell and Keith Skinner all still sit on their claims of super secret evidence that would prove the origin of the book but they still never produce the goods, any of them, and neither the watch nor the diary is given to scientific experts so that they might at least be allowed to examine it and determine for themselves what we might learn using today's scientific technology. And the years go by. And the cheap little game goes on.

[Christine]

Well, if the poems were "not his cup of tea" doesn't that make it more likely that he would have gone to a shop and looked through some old books until he found something he liked, without bothering to find out whether or not his choice was obscure?

[Victoria]

Hi Victoria,

If we assume that the Diary was produced by the insubstantial Stephen Park at some point prior to when Michael Barrett first contacted Doreen Montgomery, then it has to be that the Diary found its way from Australia to England by some means or the other - Anne Graham, if you will. Then I really do find it quite astonishing and amazingly coincidental that Mike Barrett had in his possession a book containing a poem by the obscure poet Richard Crashaw a quote from which was reproduced in the Diary. If it had been a quote from, say, Coleridge or Tennyson or W S Gilbert, then yes, fair enough; but Crashaw? It kind of stretches one's credulity.

Unless...was that Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem the possession of Anne Graham in the first place...? Was the edition of that Sphere book published before or after Anne Graham was in Australia?

Graham

Hi Graham,

I find your scenario here quite credible .. a lot stranger things do happen.
From what I read here Crashaw would not appear to be Mikes 'cup of tea',
so it is possible for Anne to be involved for that part, or, some other party ...
Steven Park may well have travelled to England at some point .. he is English.
Re the book .. we do have a lot of second hand and antiquarian book shops
here, also if the book was not published here by Annes' Australian dates ..
she may have bought a copy with her .. maybe it was her 'cup of tea'.
Or Steven may have found it in a second hand book shop.
My personal view still stands that the origins of the diary are from Steven Park, and I feel it continued with others.
I also feel that the truth of all this will come out, and probably in the not too distant future.

all the best Graham,
Victoria

[Omlor]

After.

In fact, not long before the diary first appeared.

Right around the time, in fact, when the police list of Eddowes' belongings (which the diary cites not once, not twice, but three separate times) becomes available to the public.

And after the Poste House becomes the Poste House.

Amazing, huh?

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,

--John

[Graham]

Hi Victoria,

If we assume that the Diary was produced by the insubstantial Stephen Park at some point prior to when Michael Barrett first contacted Doreen Montgomery, then it has to be that the Diary found its way from Australia to England by some means or the other - Anne Graham, if you will. Then I really do find it quite astonishing and amazingly coincidental that Mike Barrett had in his possession a book containing a poem by the obscure poet Richard Crashaw a quote from which was reproduced in the Diary. If it had been a quote from, say, Coleridge or Tennyson or W S Gilbert, then yes, fair enough; but Crashaw? It kind of stretches one's credulity.

Unless...was that Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem the possession of Anne Graham in the first place...? Was the edition of that Sphere book published before or after Anne Graham was in Australia?

Graham

[Victoria]

Hi Graham,

Your points make perfect sense and I could agree with you on
all of it ...

For me though, it is the remembering of a few events from the
past that support the early parts of Steve Powells story...
that Steven Park started the diary .. from my viewpoint, that
is true.

So then, as I know nothing else about this subject ...
I wonder could it be that the diary was put aside for years
either deliberatly, or just through loss of interest, then picked up
again some years later.....
To be finished by 'whoever', one or more people .. maybe or maybe not
including Steven Park.

I just do believe that the 'origins' of the diary rest with 'the
instubstantial Steven Park'.
It makes sense as you say that it was produced very shortly before
it was 'discovered' .. as if you have something 'ready to go' it would be
hard to sit on it when it had $ potential.

Victoria