the diary

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Graham;274486]I sometimes think that the closest Paul Feldman ever came to discovering the true origins of the 'Diary' was when he interviewed the electricians who'd carried out work on Battlecrease House, and spoke to person or persons unknown at Liverpool University regarding the examination of a book that had been brought to them. The University did concede that two men had brought in a book of some description, but according to Feldman refused to elaborate.
Fishy, or what?

Feldman said that whereas one of the electricians in true Baldric style denied everything, the other said that he drank at The Saddle, which was Devereux's local and therefore there was a good chance they knew one another. But even if this was the case, even if the 'Diary' had been rescued from Battlecrease, why should its finder(s) pass it on to Tony Devereux?

Why Feldman never pursued this aspect of the story with his customary fervour is something of a mystery to me, but there again he had nailed his colours firmly to the Graham family mast, and kept them flying there. Mike Barrett told Feldman that the electricians' story was nonsense, and it seems that Feldman believed him. I have always wondered if Mike Barrett knew a bit more about what was rumoured to have happened at Battlecrease, ref: electrical stuff and skips and so forth, than he ever let on. On the other hand, he was obviously extremely eager to maintain 'ownership' of the 'Diary' especially after Devereux's death, so it must be assumed that he routinely denied all knowledge of any Battlecrease provenance.

Much more to all this than meets the eye....

Graham[I do agree with you Graham I think the timing of the work at battle crease and the appearance of the work men drinking in the same pub is a bit to good to be true I do have my own theory about what happened.I don't have any hard facts for my theory but having met Mr Barrett a few times I have an idea of what might have happened.I was going to put from"private information" but we have had enough of that over the years

[Graham]

I sometimes think that the closest Paul Feldman ever came to discovering the true origins of the 'Diary' was when he interviewed the electricians who'd carried out work on Battlecrease House, and spoke to person or persons unknown at Liverpool University regarding the examination of a book that had been brought to them. The University did concede that two men had brought in a book of some description, but according to Feldman refused to elaborate.
Fishy, or what?

Feldman said that whereas one of the electricians in true Baldric style denied everything, the other said that he drank at The Saddle, which was Devereux's local and therefore there was a good chance they knew one another. But even if this was the case, even if the 'Diary' had been rescued from Battlecrease, why should its finder(s) pass it on to Tony Devereux?

Why Feldman never pursued this aspect of the story with his customary fervour is something of a mystery to me, but there again he had nailed his colours firmly to the Graham family mast, and kept them flying there. Mike Barrett told Feldman that the electricians' story was nonsense, and it seems that Feldman believed him. I have always wondered if Mike Barrett knew a bit more about what was rumoured to have happened at Battlecrease, ref: electrical stuff and skips and so forth, than he ever let on. On the other hand, he was obviously extremely eager to maintain 'ownership' of the 'Diary' especially after Devereux's death, so it must be assumed that he routinely denied all knowledge of any Battlecrease provenance.

Much more to all this than meets the eye....

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Sorry Pinky, when I said 'at some point', that was as much as I know myself.

I know there must be others who could say more if they chose to do so, but they presumably have reasons for their continued silence.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks caz,I'm sure the new information will come out in book form which me and countless others will buy.xxxxxxxxxxxx

[caz]

Any idea when this information will be released to us?

Sorry Pinky, when I said 'at some point', that was as much as I know myself.

I know there must be others who could say more if they chose to do so, but they presumably have reasons for their continued silence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What do you mean by 'author's motive' btw ?

Hi Kaz,

Apologies for missing your question.

Clearly the author had their own reasons for writing the diary, but it's very far from clear what those reasons were. Even if we could determine how and when it came to be in Battlecrease House, we would not know what its author was personally hoping to achieve by leaving it there.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

Any idea when this information will be released to us?

[pinkmoon]

Will there be a book coming out to explain this? It would be nice to be able to clear up where the diary came from?

[Kaz]

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

Wow, can't wait for the proof on that!

On the handwriting matter, where is JM's actual handwriting? I've only seen a signature (with the JTR squiggle) and a will that was very suspect anyway?


What do you mean by 'author's motive' btw ?

[caz]

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

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Work was been done at maybricks old house near the time the diary appeared on the scene.If it was taken from there without the home owners consent and then found its way into the hands of Mr Barrett via the local pub it would explain why we have this confusion over its history.If it was stolen from the house and then stolen of the person or persons who stole it in the first place that would explain why nobody could come forward you can't really complain and say someone's stolen something of me that I stole of someone else

[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

[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

[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]

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

[Graham]

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

Jaysus!

Graham