Special Announcement

[The Baron]

I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

Splendid.

After how many years? 20.. 30? years of researching, you recieve such a criticism!

Are you satisfied now Caz?! Proud of yourself?

Happy Lobster for you!


The Baron

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As I don't have a dog in this race, my mind turned to the meaning of Lobster.

I found Caz's original — Lord O's Big Sexy Truest Ever Reveal — and then came up with —

Lashings Of BS To Exasperate Ripperologists.

Stay safe everybody.

Simon

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Has anyone got a link to the actual article, or a transcription thereof, of Mike's initial confession in June 1994 in the Liverpool Echo?

Cheers.

[caz]

Unfrickin' believable.

There you have it, future Ripperologists. If debilitating data exists somewhere (even in a publisher's desk drawer?) you have no moral obligation to report it, and you need not be accused of suppressing it, either, because someone else will eventually find it...maybe...someday...

I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

Splendid.

So not a sodding word about Melvin Harris suppressing Mike's affidavit, making it impossible for Shirley and co to have investigated it while the iron was hot?

When are you going to apologise for criticising Shirley and co for not being frickin' psychic, when all your criticism should have been directed at Melvin and co for their underhand tactics?

Sometime never?

Do you really think there was only one possible interpretation of the aunt/Godmother reference, and therefore Keith and co 'suppressed' it deliberately, knowing it would instantly kill off the diary, with or without a credible forgery claim from Mike Barrett?

Come on now, RJ, I don't believe you are that naive.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

and it was hardly 'suppressed' if the information was there in the files to be found by anyone with a will to look.

Unfrickin' believable.

There you have it, future Ripperologists. If debilitating data exists somewhere (even in a publisher's desk drawer?) you have no moral obligation to report it, and you need not be accused of suppressing it, either, because someone else will eventually find it...maybe...someday...

I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

Splendid.

[caz]

This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.

So you're back then, are you?

Not sure about a 'spin'. I just read the recent posts regarding Keith's research on Florie's aunt, with Anne Graham's assistance. First I knew about the aunt/Godmother thing and all the possible permutations and interpretations concerning the few words in the diary on the subject.

And I don't read anything these days coming from the misleading source that is David Barrat. He was permanently banned from the casebook two years ago, so I don't see any reason to go in search of what he has to say today on any subject, least of all the diary he falsely claims the Barretts created in early April 1992!

'Orsam' acknowledges that Feldman and his research team must have seen this documentation. Indeed, it was one of the more disturbing aspects of his article...

Don't know, don't care. Feldy was hardly likely to abandon his own beliefs on the strength of learning this earth-shattering, but completely bogus revelation, that JM must have known Florie's Godmother was not her real aunt, so would never have referred to her as such in his diary, even when Florie clearly couldn't make up her mind from one minute to the next who she was going to use as her excuse for going to London and who she was going to tell.

None of this points to a modern hoax anyway, does it?

The point, as I see it, is that Feldman didn't bother to inform his readers that the aunt was actually a godmother. He must have seen this 'anomaly,' as you call it (would a better word be 'error' or 'discrepancy'?) but never mentioned it.

So what? What would you have expected of Feldy? 'Mea culpa, readers, it was Bongo after all, blindly copying from Addison'?

So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?

No, just the credit due to Keith and Anne, for finding the information in the first place. Keith couldn't force Feldy to use it, and it was hardly 'suppressed' if the information was there in the files to be found by anyone with a will to look. Unlike Mike's affidavit, which was suppressed by your old pal Melvin Harris. Or don't you believe the content of that was potentially far more 'damaging' to the diary than what its author wrote about Florie lying to Sir Jim?

And no matter what spin anyone puts to this, it certainly doesn't make Feldman look very good, and it make me wonder what else may have been churned up by his research, but was never reported.

Since when did Feldman ever 'look very good'?

Nice try, RJ, but it won't wash in 2020. Keith didn't 'suppress' the fact that he had looked into Florie's elusive aunt back in 1992/3, did he? Who else would have known - apart from Anne Graham, who ain't talking - if Keith hadn't given Ike permission to report it?

Much ado about nothing. Come back when you've found some new 'data' that explains how Bongo was hoping to make use of the 1891 diary he ordered from Martin Earl, in the context of a Barrett hoax designed to impress Doreen on 13th April 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

I hope you’ve stocked up on midge spray.

Gary

You think I might need it then, Gary?

Buzz buzz buzz

Love,

Cazz cazz cazz
X

[caz]

congrats caz youre one of the worlds leading experts on an inconsequential half assed hoax and for all your being "better informed" youve still been fooled by(according to you) a drunken idiot


no offence. : )

Read my post again, Abby.

I suggested The Baron get better informed about my position re the diary. I would jolly well hope to be better informed than most about what I think.

If anyone has been fooled by Bongo, it ain't me. I'm immune to everything the liar ever said about the diary's origins.

But many people believe the word of Mike Barrett because - er - actually, I don't really have a clue why they would believe him. They just do.

Nowt so queer as folk, as they say.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

But it isn't new research, is it, Observer? Not by any stretch. The 'anomaly' was found back in the 90s.

Credit where credit is due please.

This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.

'Orsam' acknowledges that Feldman and his research team must have seen this documentation. Indeed, it was one of the more disturbing aspects of his article...

The point, as I see it, is that Feldman didn't bother to inform his readers that the aunt was actually a godmother. He must have seen this 'anomaly,' as you call it (would a better word be 'error' or 'discrepancy'?) but never mentioned it.

So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?

I suppose it is time once again to quote Howells and Skinner.

"Supporting evidence was only being investigated insofar as it was of value to the plot, and debilitating research was being omitted altogether."

It makes me appreciate Stephen Senise's honesty for quickly informing the community that he had the wrong George Hutchinson. Unfortunately, that attitude is rather rare in what some call "Ripperology."

And no matter what spin anyone puts to this, it certainly doesn't make Feldman look very good, and it make me wonder what else may have been churned up by his research, but was never reported.

RP

[Harry D]

As I have said many times, the answer to this question lies in the statistics and - in particular - the utterly implausible nature of many events and circumstances were James Maybrick innocent of the Whitechapel crimes.

What does that even mean?

[MrBarnett]

Caz,

I hope you’ve stocked up on midge spray.

Gary

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just LOL.

[Abby Normal]

Grow up, or get yourself better informed.

No offence.

Love,

Caz
X

congrats caz youre one of the worlds leading experts on an inconsequential half assed hoax and for all your being "better informed" youve still been fooled by(according to you) a drunken idiot


no offence. : )

[caz]

Has someone taken a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story?

I suppose that's for others to judge, Kattrup. Your question did strike me as below the belt, unnecessarily provocative, and not one you genuinely expected me to answer:

Is your recommendation to researchers that “Inside Story” is generally untrustworthy or is it just the details surrounding the affidavit?

You then went on to inform us that:

...David Barret mentions a phone call between Whay and Harrison January 16th, by which date the affidavit was known (page 167).

As I then explained to you, David Barrat still had his Whay and Harrison communications mixed up when you read this. We don't refer to the conversation on January 16th 1995. This one related back to what Mike Barrett told Harold Brough in June 1994 about obtaining what Shirley described as an 'unremarkable empty album'. It would be another two years before she had sight of Mike's January 1995 affidavit, and was able to share it with Kevin Whay and ask him to do a new search based on Mike's complete change of story to an album with 125 pages of WWI photos plus a compass. All the information needed for David B to correct his own misleading claims about the purpose of the above-mentioned phone call was posted around 4 months ago for RJ Palmer's benefit, and it has now been posted again for yours.

Maybe you could do the honours and make sure David B knows about it this time, so he won't be caught again with his pants down concerning who knew about Mike's affidavit and when. Then you and David B and RJP and Observer and Abby Normal and The Baron and Uncle Tom Cobley & All might wish to consider why Melvin Harris didn't want Shirley and co seeing that affidavit and investigating its new claims when Mike first swore it, and why a version of it eventually found its way onto the internet before Shirley even got a sniff.

I haven't yet seen anyone faulting the authors for making a mistake. No book is without error. How an author reacts to one is, of course, telling.

That's great, Kattrup. I'm happy to draw a line under that unfortunate question, and you can find out for your own satisfaction how David B has reacted to his own mistake over what Shirley was enquiring about and when.

Just a friendly reminder, in case anyone can use it:

Thursday 5th January 1995
Affidavit sworn by Mike Barrett:
MB states he has been trying to expose the diary fraud since December 1993... [and what have you and that's the God's honest truth]
Sources: copy of sworn affidavit dated 5th January 1995 (CAM/KS/1995 – not seen by Shirley Harrison until 22nd January 1997, when MB sends her a copy. Not seen by Keith Skinner until 23rd January 1997, when SH gives him a copy. KS faxes a copy to Paul Feldman on 31st January 1997.)
https://www.casebook.org/suspects/ja...con.bjan5.html

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Grow up, or get yourself better informed.

No offence.

Love,

Caz
X