the diary

[caz]

The answer to Caroline's either/or question is neither. Writing, whether in a post or a novel, should be for the benefit of the reader, not the other way around.

I've never known any women who were hung, but many men wish they were.

Hi Cris,

I agree with you, but I have not read anything in pinkmoon's posts yet that would be beyond the average reader's comprehension.

On the other hand, some posters display perfect spelling, grammar and punctuation, yet their ability to express opinions on subjects they clearly know little about (and I certainly don't include you here) is often way beyond comprehension.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, pink. I agree with you. And yes, I've met Mike Barrett on a few occasions, and we interviewed him a couple of times for Ripper Diary. A bit of a charmer, we walked up the pub arm in arm at one point, and he was easy to talk to.

But you and I both know he would be the very last person on the planet a hoaxer with any sense would involve, or allow to be involved, at any level - let alone give sole charge of the finished product, including what to say about it and what to do with it.

I was merely suggesting to another poster that knowing Mike like you and I do is more important than perfect punctuation.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz
I don't know what you are on but save me some.

How can you say he could not have been involved. The man was involved in what was a conspiracy. He went to a solicitors and signed a legal document having sworn on oath that it was the truth.

Not only that the document contained accurate and concise details of how the diary was forged. He swore that it was correct. He swore that he had been involved with others in forging the diary.

That to me is involvement whether it was correct or not in terms of the law he is just as guilty as the man who wrote the diary or the man who acquired, or hatched the conspiracy.

[The Good Michael]

Hi GM,

Why don't you address your question to pinkmoon?

In fact, I would have thought you'd have a dozen better questions than that if you seriously suspect what you appear to be suspecting.

Caz,

If I were serious, I would.

Mike

[Ally]

At first I thought I was hallucinating.. CAZ is defending content over form? CAZ? Who used to go grammar-nazi over a single typo or misspelling or it's/its, their/there is actually defending someone who is so lazy and sloppy in their writing that it is virtually incomprehensible?

Seriously, am I in the Twilight Zone? I feel like I've stepped into some sort of alternate universe.

[pinkmoon]

Hi caz,meeting Mike Barrett by chance years ago convinced me at first diary must be genuine for simply reason Barrett couldnt be forger after talking to him a few times I came away with the impression there is someone else in the background behind all this and I think no one expected this to become as big as it did and get so out of hand

[caz]

Caz
I don't know what you are on but save me some.

How can you say he could not have been involved.

You really should learn to read, Trev. I did not say Mike 'could not have been involved' with the diary. Don't be silly. I said that no hoaxer with any sense would have allowed Mike anywhere near such a project if they had any say in it.

That means the hoaxer either had no sense, or was unable to control what happened to the diary - arguably because they were long dead by the time Mike got his hands on it.

Not only that the document contained accurate and concise details of how the diary was forged.

Don't make me laugh. None of Mike's 'confessions' contained accurate or concise details - they were all over the place.

He swore that it was correct. He swore that he had been involved with others in forging the diary.

Yes, Mike did a fair bit of swearing if I recall. Sadly, none of it was the kind that made his claims any more believable. Most were provably incorrect. I'm afraid you have been played like a fiddle.

Mike is of course guilty of having made sworn statements that were filled with untruths. But that doesn't prove he knows any more than anyone else about who wrote the diary, when or why. In fact it would tend to indicate his total ignorance on the matter, otherwise he would have stated what he knew and come up with the evidence for how he knew it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

At first I thought I was hallucinating.. CAZ is defending content over form? CAZ? Who used to go grammar-nazi over a single typo or misspelling or it's/its, their/there is actually defending someone who is so lazy and sloppy in their writing that it is virtually incomprehensible?

Seriously, am I in the Twilight Zone? I feel like I've stepped into some sort of alternate universe.

Hi Ally,

Virtually incomprehensible? Really?

I only tend to go grammar-nazi when posters who have English as their first language claim to have a much better grasp than their posts actually demonstrate.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi caz,meeting Mike Barrett by chance years ago convinced me at first diary must be genuine for simply reason Barrett couldnt be forger after talking to him a few times I came away with the impression there is someone else in the background behind all this and I think no one expected this to become as big as it did and get so out of hand

For anyone having trouble comprehending the above, allow me to translate (and to be frank, I thought only Trev might have struggled with it):

"Hi caz, meeting Mike Barrett by chance years ago convinced me at first that the diary must be genuine, for the simple reason that Barrett couldn't be the forger. After talking to him a few times I came away with the impression there is someone else in the background behind all this, and I think no one expected it to become as big as it did and get so out of hand."

All on board now?

Carry on.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

After suffering posters who are so far up themselves it must be painful, it makes a nice change to hear from someone who is polite and interesting, even if his punctuation isn't up to Churchillian standards. Anyone ever tried to read James Joyce?

Graham

[Robert]

Joyce? Pah! What did he know about the Diary?

[Graham]

Joyce? Pah! What did he know about the Diary?

Jaysus!

Graham

[caz]

Joyce? Pah! What did he know about the Diary?

Arguably as much as Mike Barrett, and very possibly more.

But then my auntie Joyce knows more than Mike and I haven't even got an auntie Joyce.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

You really should learn to read, Trev. I did not say Mike 'could not have been involved' with the diary. Don't be silly. I said that no hoaxer with any sense would have allowed Mike anywhere near such a project if they had any say in it.

That means the hoaxer either had no sense, or was unable to control what happened to the diary - arguably because they were long dead by the time Mike got his hands on it.



Don't make me laugh. None of Mike's 'confessions' contained accurate or concise details - they were all over the place.



Yes, Mike did a fair bit of swearing if I recall. Sadly, none of it was the kind that made his claims any more believable. Most were provably incorrect. I'm afraid you have been played like a fiddle.

Mike is of course guilty of having made sworn statements that were filled with untruths. But that doesn't prove he knows any more than anyone else about who wrote the diary, when or why. In fact it would tend to indicate his total ignorance on the matter, otherwise he would have stated what he knew and come up with the evidence for how he knew it.

Love,

Caz
X

Come on Caz take the blinkers of !

[caz]

Okay Trev, if you know all the answers, could you explain what Mike was doing in June 1994, approaching the papers of his own accord to claim he wrote the diary himself?

Assuming he was actually guilty of doing so, or at least knew it was a recent fake, what do you think prompted him to come forward, put a stop to the substantial royalties he had recently been enjoying and risk prosecution into the bargain?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Assuming he was actually guilty of doing so, or at least knew it was a recent fake, what do you think prompted him to come forward, put a stop to the substantial royalties he had recently been enjoying and risk prosecution into the bargain?

Hey Caz, do you think Mike did get the book from the Maybrick house, either first hand or passed onto him? Do you think that part of the story is true? If I'm not mistaken, Keith Skinner is supposed to announce something about the provenance of the book and is sure it came from the house.

Mike