Could the Freemasons have the key?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Graham,

As an aside, and taking into account that the guy was single-minded to say the least, I just wonder if everyone contributing to this and other 'Diary' threads has read Paul Feldman's book?

Feldman is the one Ripper book in our public library I've not read. Do you recommend I do so? Would it help me understand the subject?

Your ob serv,

Roy

[Graham]

Good afternoon Graham,



Feldman is the one Ripper book in our public library I've not read. Do you recommend I do so? Would it help me understand the subject?

Your ob serv,

Roy

Speaking personally, I think it's required reading for anyone interested in the 'Diary', as it was the first book about the subject as far as I'm aware. As I said, he was very single-minded, but nevertheless his unbounded energy (and wealth) left no stone unturned, and he uncovered a good deal of little-known or unknown information about the Maybrick Case, irrespective of any supposed or possible connection to the Ripper.

Graham

[caz]

Hi Graham,

Shirley Harrison's book came first, back in 1993. Feldy's was published four years later, in 1997.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

It is not merely my opinion that it is fake.

I have considered that on one side, are experts like Joe Nickell, and document expert Kenneth W. Rendell, both of whom I know a great deal about, and whom I very much respect, saying it is false. Also, there are Mike Barrett's two separate affidavits that he dictated the diary contents to his wife, who wrote it.

On the other side, we have Shirley Harrison, who has published quite a lot on the diary, and has financial and personal reasons for insisting that is it real, then we have Anna Koren, the Israeli graphologist, whose credentials are all from an organization she founded, and whose claims to have examined documents for the Israeli government have never been independently verified, and, any "evidence" for the diary is negative, which is to say, it simply does not disprove it. The book is genuinely Victorian. There is nothing in the ink that precludes it from being Victorian. However, there is nothing positive-- for example, the presence of something no longer available, or a fingerprint traced back to James Maybrick.

As Phil H says, the burden of proof is upon those arguing for something. It is not up to the general public to disprove the diary. It is up to those who promote it to definitively prove it, and they have not done so.

If it were not the case, that the proponents of claims had the burden of proof, then we would have to accept every crazy thing until spent time and resources disproved it. Can't you see how that is untenable?

[Phil H]

Excellent, clear post Rivkah. I agree entirely.

Phil H

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Shirley Harrison's book came first, back in 1993. Feldy's was published four years later, in 1997.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Ooooh sorry - apologies to Shirley Harrison. Both good reads, though.

Best,

Graham

[Graham]

I have considered that on one side, are experts like Joe Nickell, and document expert Kenneth W. Rendell, both of whom I know a great deal about, and whom I very much respect, saying it is false.

And then we have the opinion of Alec Voller (who I briefly met in the course of my business), former Chief Chemist of Diamine Inks Ltd, who stated (a) the Diary ink is not Diamine; and (b) it was applied to the paper a long time ago, i.e., not during the period when certain critics claim it was written. He felt that the document was at least 90 years old at the time he saw it, and possibly older.

Also, there are Mike Barrett's two separate affidavits that he dictated the diary contents to his wife, who wrote it.

Barrett's own solicitor stated that his client was, quote, not in full control of his faculties when he made that statement which was totally incorrect and without foundation. [Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman. Paperback edition, 1998, Page 178].

Graham

[Phil H]

Barrett's own solicitor stated that his client was, quote, not in full control of his faculties when he made that statement which was totally incorrect and without foundation. [Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman. Paperback edition, 1998, Page 178].

But Barrett said it!! That he did so is confirmed by the later denial.

Subsequent denials can be made for all sorts of reasons, and there must have been many interested parties who were concerned by what had been said. (I recall "Hobo" Gorman/Sickert withdrawing his statements on which Stephen Knight based his book in the 70s.) The denials were patently worth nothing as years later a new story emerged from Mr Gorman.

Indeed, if Mr Barrett was "not in full control of his faculties " how can we be sure it was he - and not another party - who instructed the solicitor? Or that he knew what he was doing when he gave instructions - if it were he?

The denial is on the record. At the very least it's source muddies the waters considerably.

Phil H

[Gladiator]

Barrett's own solicitor stated that his client was, quote, not in full control of his faculties when he made that statement which was totally incorrect and without foundation. [Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman. Paperback edition, 1998, Page 178].

But Barrett said it!! That he did so is confirmed by the later denial.

Phil H

There can be no doubt that he said it, Phil. Emotionally-imbalanced and none too sober, he made one truly desperate attempt to gain one last hurrah from the diary he had stumbled upon and failed miserably.

No-one - other than those who are deeply ill-informed on the subject - place any store in this infantile pantomime. He has never repeated this claim, and was never investigated for making it.

Barrett was not the author of the Maybrick notebook. That's one of the few things in this case we can be really confident about.

Gladiator.

[Phil H]

I'm pleased you are so confident, Gladiator.

[caz]

It is not merely my opinion that it is fake.

No indeed. I don't believe Maybrick wrote it either. But it was your opinion, stated as if it were a definitely ascertained fact, that it was faked 'a hundred years' after the events it portrays, and that is what I took issue with.

I have considered that on one side, are experts like Joe Nickell, and document expert Kenneth W. Rendell, both of whom I know a great deal about, and whom I very much respect, saying it is false. Also, there are Mike Barrett's two separate affidavits that he dictated the diary contents to his wife, who wrote it.

But neither expert came up with a date that was 'a hundred years' too late. The Rendell team, which included Nickell, could only come up with an unhelpful and face-saving 'prior to 1970', which lets Mike Barrett off the hook as much as he does himself with all the provable and contradictory lies he has told about the diary and his involvement since 1992.

Nothing Mike has ever claimed about the diary's origins has been supported by good science, documentary evidence or the known facts.

On the other side, we have Shirley Harrison, who has published quite a lot on the diary, and has financial and personal reasons for insisting that is it real...

That is a disgraceful thing to claim about someone you don't know and have never met. From my own experience of Shirley, her beliefs have always been every bit as sincerely held as Feldy's were, even though I don't happen to share them, and any financial advantage that may have been imagined in the early days remains only in the most suspicious and ill-informed minds today.

As Phil H says, the burden of proof is upon those arguing for something. It is not up to the general public to disprove the diary. It is up to those who promote it to definitively prove it, and they have not done so.

If it were not the case, that the proponents of claims had the burden of proof, then we would have to accept every crazy thing until spent time and resources disproved it. Can't you see how that is untenable?

Of course, but then I'm not arguing for anything here, just against unsupported opinions being aired on either side. The burden of proof is as much upon those insisting the thing is a recent fake (which is exactly the kind of 'crazy thing' I don't have to accept, when there is no proof and no sign that there ever will be) as it is on the few who have tried to promote it here as the real deal with the same lack of proof. Can't you see how both are equally untenable?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

On the other side, we have Shirley Harrison, who has published quite a lot on the diary, and has financial and personal reasons for insisting that is it real...

That is a factual statement and is not disgraceful at all. If Ms Harrison were to take part in a debate on th subject, i would expect her to declare an interest.

So I wholly disagree that it is "a disgraceful thing to claim about someone you don't know and have never met".

From my own experience of Shirley, her beliefs have always been every bit as sincerely held as Feldy's were, even though I don't happen to share them, and any financial advantage that may have been imagined in the early days remains only in the most suspicious and ill-informed minds today.

Again, you don't have to be suspicious and ill-informed to make such a judgement, just a historian looking for the sub-text. Your words make clear that she DID have a finaicial interest, at least at one time. It doesn't say anything about the sincerity of her beliefs, which is a separate issue - only that we should be cautious in considering her motives in anything she says. PARTICULARLY if one doesn't know her personally.

The burden of proof is as much upon those insisting the thing is a recent fake (which is exactly the kind of 'crazy thing' I don't have to accept,

Sorry, but the burden of proof in demonstrating that the "diary" is in any respect of relevance to anything is ENTIRELY WITH ITS PROPONENTS.

when there is no proof and no sign that there ever will be) as it is on the few who have tried to promote it here as the real deal with the same lack of proof.

Arguments among the "diarys" supporters are irrelevent. The fact remains that in scholarly terms the valume has no status at this present time, as either genuine or an old forgery. I remain of the view that it could well be recent - "experts" as with Hugh Trevor-Roper and the Hitler forgeries - can be fooled for many reasons.

Can't you see how both are equally untenable?


No - the politics of diaryology are a mystery to me - not because they are enigmatic but because they have no relevance to me. At present the diary has no legitimacy of any kind, so why should I be concerned about claims as to the numbers of angels on the head of a pin?

Phil H

[Graham]

No - the politics of diaryology are a mystery to me - not because they are enigmatic but because they have no relevance to me. At present the diary has no legitimacy of any kind, so why should I be concerned about claims as to the numbers of angels on the head of a pin?

So why are you wasting your obviously valuable time on this thread?

Graham

[RivkahChaya]

Barrett's own solicitor stated that his client was, quote, not in full control of his faculties when he made that statement which was totally incorrect and without foundation. [Jack The Ripper - The Final Chapter, Paul Feldman. Paperback edition, 1998, Page 178].

So, should we trust anything he says, including his original story about the diary's provenance?

No - the politics of diaryology are a mystery to me - not because they are enigmatic but because they have no relevance to me. At present the diary has no legitimacy of any kind, so why should I be concerned about claims as to the numbers of angels on the head of a pin?

Phil H

Me too. It's a footnote; even if it were a contemporary fake, it would be no more important to discovering who killed the women in Whitechapel in 1888, than the story of the two women who were arrested and charged with writing a fake letter to the police. Maybe even less important, since clearly it wasn't known to the police. It might be of minor literary interest, since the "found letters/diary" was a literary device upon which the novel was built. Precursor to "found footage films," and all, but really nothing new. Willkie Collins wrote The Moonstone that way 20 years earlier*.


*No, I don't think the diary is some 1888's hack's attempt at novelizing the ripper murders.

[Stephen Thomas]

Feldman is the one Ripper book in our public library I've not read. Do you recommend I do so? Would it help me understand the subject?

Hello Roy

The Feldman book is an impressive artefact in the 'diary' saga if you are remotely interested in the subject. Graham's obvious affection for it is not misplaced. A few days ago I ordered a 'used' copy of the hardback first edition from Amazon UK for £2.85 including postage (ie less than the price of a pint) and was amazed to receive yesterday a gleaming, spanking brand new book looking like it had been just printed.

I think the seller was The Book Warehouse