the diary

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;276210]

But it didn't, so you don't.

You, and many like you, dismiss the diary directly because of what individual handed it to the world to see.

Thats not good enough for me, the diary needs more work, not the people surrounding it.

Yes the diary needs more work but you've got to admit the way it was "discoverd"harms it greatly why oh why couldn't they just give us the last story about it been in the family in the first place

[Kaz]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276162]

If the story about it coming via Anne's family had been how we were introduced to the diary then fine no problem I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been our killer...

But it didn't, so you don't.

You, and many like you, dismiss the diary directly because of what individual handed it to the world to see.

Thats not good enough for me, the diary needs more work, not the people surrounding it.

[pinkmoon]

Sorry, but you've lost me here.



Who gave him this opportunity, and where can I read about it? There was some talk by Feldman that the 'Diary' had been removed from a skip at Battlecrease during work on the house, and taken by its finder/s to Liverpool University for investigation, but I don't remember the name of Mike Barrett being linked to this. I did speculate a few posts back that IF the 'Diary' had been found at Battlecrease then maybe Barrett might have found out about it, saw an opportunity, and obtained it. But that is just speculation, and no basis in fact.

Feldman did also consider that the 'Diary' came from Maybrick's former office premises in Liverpool where, by sheer coincidence, Anne Barrett worked. But I believe that Feldman dismissed this possibility as too far-fetched even for him.

Graham

The workmen from battlecrease admitted to drinking in the saddlers pub which was Mr barretts local or should I say second home.I think this fact was not followed up properly by Mr Feldman I think it might tie the whole thing together it links to some of the constants Mr Barrett told me.If we assume diary is not a modern forgery then what could this information tell us.

[Graham]

If the watch is genuine then the diary is a much older document and not a modern forgery if that is the case it is not rocket science to work out how Mike Barrett got it

Sorry, but you've lost me here.

Also we have to remember Mr Barrett had an opportunity to link the diary to Battlecrease but he didn't that is very telling as well.

Who gave him this opportunity, and where can I read about it? There was some talk by Feldman that the 'Diary' had been removed from a skip at Battlecrease during work on the house, and taken by its finder/s to Liverpool University for investigation, but I don't remember the name of Mike Barrett being linked to this. I did speculate a few posts back that IF the 'Diary' had been found at Battlecrease then maybe Barrett might have found out about it, saw an opportunity, and obtained it. But that is just speculation, and no basis in fact.

Feldman did also consider that the 'Diary' came from Maybrick's former office premises in Liverpool where, by sheer coincidence, Anne Barrett worked. But I believe that Feldman dismissed this possibility as too far-fetched even for him.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi PM,

unless Keith Skinner has definitive information to the contrary, I don't think that the 'Diary's' whereabouts prior to its appearance in 1993 can be proved. It obviously came into the possession of Mike Barrett at some time prior to his announcing the fact, but how he actually came into possession of it is somewhat conjectural to say the least. And if we assume that Barrett obtained it only a relatively short time prior to his contacting Doreen Montgomery, then where had it been before he came into possession of it?

And what about the Maybrick Watch? Genuine, or a scam intended to make a bob or two? If the latter, then it's slightly surprising that its owner Albert Johnson turned down an offer of around $80000 for it from an American collector....

Graham

If the watch is genuine then the diary is a much older document and not a modern forgery if that is the case it is not rocket science to work out how Mike Barrett got it .I did read a while ago in a newspaper that there was some doubt of the age of the brass particles in the watches etchings.Also we have to remember Mr Barrett had an opportunity to link the diary to battlecrease but he didn't that is very telling as well.

[Graham]

Hi PM,

unless Keith Skinner has definitive information to the contrary, I don't think that the 'Diary's' whereabouts prior to its appearance in 1993 can be proved. It obviously came into the possession of Mike Barrett at some time prior to his announcing the fact, but how he actually came into possession of it is somewhat conjectural to say the least. And if we assume that Barrett obtained it only a relatively short time prior to his contacting Doreen Montgomery, then where had it been before he came into possession of it?

And what about the Maybrick Watch? Genuine, or a scam intended to make a bob or two? If the latter, then it's slightly surprising that its owner Albert Johnson turned down an offer of around $80000 for it from an American collector....

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi PM,

which 'diary book' are you referring to? Shirley Harrison's or Paul Feldman's? Or another?

Feldman was a serious believer in Maybrick as the Ripper, to the extent that it appeared to take over his life. He put a sum of money well into 6 figures into his researches, or so I understand, all but ruining him. He was first and foremost a film and TV producer, and had in mind a movie based on Maybrick as the Ripper, and was looking forward to some serious Hollywood backing, but this all fell apart when the 'experts' proclaimed that the 'Diary' was a modern fake and the hoped-for backers pulled out. I don't know how many copies of his book were sold, but probably nowhere near enough to make up for his personal expenditure in researching and writing it. Caz will have more info on this, I'm sure. I don't think Shirley Harrison made a fortune out of her book either, nor out of the book she wrote with Anne Barrett-Graham as a collaborator called 'The Last Victim'. I've never read it, have to be honest.

Mike Barrett, or so I understand, received about £70000 in royalties and squandered the lot. Anne Barrett refused to accept any royalties, but did I believe eventually agree to accepting some money for the benefit of her daughter.

Hi Kaz,

unfortunately I have to disagree with you - I do not believe that Maybrick is a valid suspect, the 'Diary', Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and others notwithstanding. Prior to the 'discovery' of the 'Diary', Maybrick was known only as the disputed victim in a celebrated Victorian murder-trial. What the 'Diary' actually means by the line Dear Bunny knows all is open to conjecture - if the 'Diary' has anything to do with Maybrick either direct or remotely, then that line could mean almost anything. And of course until the 'Diary' came along there was absolutely nothing to link Maybrick with the Ripper Murders, and I'm sure that if he had been a suspect then his name would have been associated with the Ripper well before the Year Of The Diary.

Yes, IF Anne had made the 'Diary' public independently of her husband, then things may have been viewed in a different light; but she didn't. She claims to have passed it to Mike via Devereux, as we all know. I wonder if this was because Mike was beginning to get cold feet about the 'Diary', and its possible consequences as far as he himself was concerned? As I suggested previously, I don't think even Feldman really accepted Anne's story of how the 'Diary' came into Mike's possession, and if you read his book he seems uncertain of the claim that it had been in the Graham family since at least 1940 - to me, it seems that he wanted to believe it, but couldn't quite convince himself.

Graham

Hi Graham ,I refer to both paul Feldmans and Shirley Harrison's books. I honestly believe that the diary books shouldn't have been published untill the diarys whereabouts for over a hundred years could be proved and how Mike barret had it in his possession could be proved.I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been the ripper I think his drug addiction could explain boldness I just feel that the chance to make a lot of money clouded people's common sense.As you know I have spoken to Mr Barrett several times and have listend to his waffle some things he told me were constant every time .I'm wondering if the rumours about something keith skinner came across in 2007 correspond to the constants Mike Barrett told me

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;276157]

Go and get your teeth into dracula then...






People like harrison and feldman invested tens of thousands of hours in the diary, not to mention money out of their own pockets, how in any way does financial gain change what's written in it?

Maybrick far outweighs most as a valid suspect.

I still wonder how differently the diary would be viewed IF anne and her father had come forward with it.

If the story about it coming via Anne's family had been how we were introduced to the diary then fine no problem I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been our killer his drug addiction would explain killers boldness.What I have a problem with is the lie about how Mike Barrett got it via his mate Tony.Having met Mr Barrett several times I cannot believe people took him so seriously he couldn't believe it himself!.Why lie about something that's in you possession if it's genuine .If we are told another story about where the diary has come from who will believe it.I do believe that the lure of money did cloud people's judgement.

[Graham]

Hi PM,

which 'diary book' are you referring to? Shirley Harrison's or Paul Feldman's? Or another?

Feldman was a serious believer in Maybrick as the Ripper, to the extent that it appeared to take over his life. He put a sum of money well into 6 figures into his researches, or so I understand, all but ruining him. He was first and foremost a film and TV producer, and had in mind a movie based on Maybrick as the Ripper, and was looking forward to some serious Hollywood backing, but this all fell apart when the 'experts' proclaimed that the 'Diary' was a modern fake and the hoped-for backers pulled out. I don't know how many copies of his book were sold, but probably nowhere near enough to make up for his personal expenditure in researching and writing it. Caz will have more info on this, I'm sure. I don't think Shirley Harrison made a fortune out of her book either, nor out of the book she wrote with Anne Barrett-Graham as a collaborator called 'The Last Victim'. I've never read it, have to be honest.

Mike Barrett, or so I understand, received about £70000 in royalties and squandered the lot. Anne Barrett refused to accept any royalties, but did I believe eventually agree to accepting some money for the benefit of her daughter.

Hi Kaz,

unfortunately I have to disagree with you - I do not believe that Maybrick is a valid suspect, the 'Diary', Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and others notwithstanding. Prior to the 'discovery' of the 'Diary', Maybrick was known only as the disputed victim in a celebrated Victorian murder-trial. What the 'Diary' actually means by the line Dear Bunny knows all is open to conjecture - if the 'Diary' has anything to do with Maybrick either direct or remotely, then that line could mean almost anything. And of course until the 'Diary' came along there was absolutely nothing to link Maybrick with the Ripper Murders, and I'm sure that if he had been a suspect then his name would have been associated with the Ripper well before the Year Of The Diary.

Yes, IF Anne had made the 'Diary' public independently of her husband, then things may have been viewed in a different light; but she didn't. She claims to have passed it to Mike via Devereux, as we all know. I wonder if this was because Mike was beginning to get cold feet about the 'Diary', and its possible consequences as far as he himself was concerned? As I suggested previously, I don't think even Feldman really accepted Anne's story of how the 'Diary' came into Mike's possession, and if you read his book he seems uncertain of the claim that it had been in the Graham family since at least 1940 - to me, it seems that he wanted to believe it, but couldn't quite convince himself.

Graham

[Kaz]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276083]

Maybrick only become connected to the ripper case when diary appeared so to try and put him as the ripper is quite far fetched try and study a more serious suspect like the elephant man or Lewis Carroll or Dracula.

Go and get your teeth into dracula then...






People like harrison and feldman invested tens of thousands of hours in the diary, not to mention money out of their own pockets, how in any way does financial gain change what's written in it?

Maybrick far outweighs most as a valid suspect.

I still wonder how differently the diary would be viewed IF anne and her father had come forward with it.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276082]Hi Keith,you have to bear it in mind that when the diary book was published the people involved in it we not totally convinced themselves if it was genuine.Most people would wait till the story about how Mr Barrett came into its possession and where it had been for over a hundred years had been confirmed before even attempting to publish and make money.Having met Mr Barrett several times there is no way I would get involved with him with anything certainly not a money making venture but I think the glint of gold short circuited a lot of people's common sense.Oh I forgot to mention the book sold hundreds of thousands of copies but no one seems to have made any money out of it .Maybrick only become connected to the ripper case when diary appeared so to try and put him as the ripper is quite far fetched try and study a more serious suspect like the elephant man or Lewis Carroll or Dracula.

[pinkmoon]

Certainly, no incriminating evidence as to Maybrick`s guilt has yet been unearthed. As with all the `suspects`, Maybrick tends to be judged purely on circumstantial evidence, at best. As such, I cannot cast guilt upon him, with any kind of wholehearted certainty. However I would suggest, that far more of this circumstantial evidence is apparent in Maybrick`s case, than many other `suspects` put forward. Including those mentioned by certain police officers of the day. Some of which, I have to confess, has kept me awake at night. Equally, nothing, has yet come to light with which we can totally dismiss him. Neither his character, or his movements, provide any kind of alibi. In fact, quite the reverse. This is precisely what I meant, when suggesting the police would certainly have at least kept him under a close watch, if not taken him in for questioning. My longstanding regret, is that they did not.

Hi Keith,you have to bear it in mind that when the diary book was published the people involved in it we not totally convinced themselves if it was genuine.Most people would wait till the story about how Mr Barrett came into its possession and where it had been for over a hundred years had been confirmed before even attempting to publish and make money.Having met Mr Barrett several times there is no way I would get involved with him with anything certainly not a money making venture but I think the glint of gold short circuited a lot of people's common sense.Oh I forgot to mention the book sold hundreds of thousands of copies but no one seems to have made any money out of it .

[Keith Dracup]

Graham

Certainly, no incriminating evidence as to Maybrick`s guilt has yet been unearthed. As with all the `suspects`, Maybrick tends to be judged purely on circumstantial evidence, at best. As such, I cannot cast guilt upon him, with any kind of wholehearted certainty. However I would suggest, that far more of this circumstantial evidence is apparent in Maybrick`s case, than many other `suspects` put forward. Including those mentioned by certain police officers of the day. Some of which, I have to confess, has kept me awake at night. Equally, nothing, has yet come to light with which we can totally dismiss him. Neither his character, or his movements, provide any kind of alibi. In fact, quite the reverse. This is precisely what I meant, when suggesting the police would certainly have at least kept him under a close watch, if not taken him in for questioning. My longstanding regret, is that they did not.

Feldman believed that the 'Diary' had been in the Graham family for years, at least since 1940. He never believed that Mike Barrett wrote it, and to be honest I think he was also not wholly convinced that Anne passed the 'Diary' to Mike via Tony Devereux, as she claimed.

The recent provenance of the 'Diary' notwithstanding, what I was implying was that Feldman did not succeed in proving the case for James Maybrick's being Jack The Ripper. The 'Diary' plus what is known of the historical James Maybrick do not provide a single indisputable piece of evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper.

Graham

[Graham]

How could he succeed like I said before I can't believe intelligent people took Mr Barrett seriously he couldn't believe it himself

Feldman believed that the 'Diary' had been in the Graham family for years, at least since 1940. He never believed that Mike Barrett wrote it, and to be honest I think he was also not wholly convinced that Anne passed the 'Diary' to Mike via Tony Devereux, as she claimed.

The recent provenance of the 'Diary' notwithstanding, what I was implying was that Feldman did not succeed in proving the case for James Maybrick's being Jack The Ripper. The 'Diary' plus what is known of the historical James Maybrick do not provide a single indisputable piece of evidence that Maybrick was the Ripper.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Graham;275770]KD,

I think that it would be generally agreed by the majority that had it not been for the 'Diary', then James Maybrick would never have been considered a suspect for the Ripper Murders. There really is no reason why he should be, apart from the 'Diary'. Rather more is known about his life than, for example, that of Montague Druitt, and although he was undoubtedly an unpleasant character, there is nothing in his 'real' history to suggest that he might have been a serial killer. If the 'Diary' was written as a joke, or as a deliberate attempt at fraud, then I suppose one might say that James Maybrick is something of an inspired subject; however, given that the 'Diary' does contain a lot of information about Maybrick that hitherto was not widely known, then that in itself gives me some cause to suspect that whoever wrote it either knew Maybrick personally or had quite a wide secondary knowledge of him and his life.

Paul Feldman went to incredible lengths in his attempt to prove that Maybrick wrote the 'Diary' and was, by definition, Jack The Ripper; but although his book is extremely interesting reading, I for one don't think that Feldman succeeded.

Graham[/QUmr

How could he succeed like I said before I can't believe intelligent people took Mr Barrett seriously he couldn't believe it himself