Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

Before the timesheets were discovered, the Graham heirloom story was pretty much the only game in town.

Why don't you think for yourself, Jay, instead of parroting the words of others?

'The only game in town?' It's a meaningless catch phrase.

There was obviously another game in town: Mike and Anne bamboozled the diary researchers.

That Keith and Feldy and Shirley decided to dismiss the Barretts as implausible authors is hardly evidence that Anne's provenance--which y'all now accept was hokum--was the only avenue worthy of their time and attention.

[erobitha]

One of the many problems with your silly belief that the diary came out of Battlecrease isn't the behavior of Mike Barrett so much as it is the behavior of Anne Graham.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever given a coherent or believable reason why Anne would have come forward with her 'in the family' nonsense had the diary merely been something that Mike had brought home from the boozer, particularly considering she was 'free and clear' of him and wasn't cashing her royalty cheques. Never once, in all those years, did she see fit to whisper the simple truth in Feldman's ear? Or in Keith's?

You talk circles around this glaring circumstance and compose and post ten paragraph word salads trying not to address it, but any intelligent viewer can see you have no legitimate explanation.

Twenty years ago, we were assured that Anne Graham was telling the truth. Your co-author Keith Skinner even wrote an impassioned letter to the Ripperologist in her defense. It is fair to say that both Feldman's book and Ripper Diary were defenses of Anne's provenance tale. And, back in the day, we who didn't believe Anne were scolded for doubting the word of a woman we had never met, for our lack of humility, for our rush to judgment, etc. etc. Same arguments now as we were treated to then.

Remember any of that?

Now it's a matter of 'Ooops, we were wrong. Sorry. In believing Anne, we showed an incredible lack of judgment, and all our arguments and outrage were wide of the mark, but we are right this time.'

Talk about a lack of humility!

And yet: still no credible explanation of why Anne acted the way she did had the diary been something her crazy ex-husband had brought home from the pub.

But do lecture us some more, Caz, on how muddled our thinking is.

What this statement actually demonstrates RJ, is your inability to roll with the evidence.

Before the timesheets were discovered, the Graham heirloom story was pretty much the only game in town. When new evidence emerges, you need to be able to roll with it.

The problem is you are so entrenched in a Barrett hoax theory you have boxed yourself into not considering what the more recent evidence actually shows us. You see it as some kind of weakness to adapt your thinking to evidence as it presents itself. It's actually the opposite.

That's a problem you and Orsam need to figure out.

[rjpalmer]

Would he buggery!

One of the many problems with your silly belief that the diary came out of Battlecrease isn't the behavior of Mike Barrett so much as it is the behavior of Anne Graham.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever given a coherent or believable reason why Anne would have come forward with her 'in the family' nonsense had the diary merely been something that Mike had brought home from the boozer, particularly considering she was 'free and clear' of him and wasn't cashing her royalty cheques. Never once, in all those years, did she see fit to whisper the simple truth in Feldman's ear? Or in Keith's?

You talk circles around this glaring circumstance and compose and post ten paragraph word salads trying not to address it, but any intelligent viewer can see you have no legitimate explanation.

Twenty years ago, we were assured that Anne Graham was telling the truth. Your co-author Keith Skinner even wrote an impassioned letter to the Ripperologist in her defense. It is fair to say that both Feldman's book and Ripper Diary were defenses of Anne's provenance tale. And, back in the day, we who didn't believe Anne were scolded for doubting the word of a woman we had never met, for our lack of humility, for our rush to judgment, etc. etc. Same arguments now as we were treated to then.

Remember any of that?

Now it's a matter of 'Ooops, we were wrong. Sorry. In believing Anne, we showed an incredible lack of judgment, and all our arguments and outrage were wide of the mark, but we are right this time.'

Talk about a lack of humility!

And yet: still no credible explanation of why Anne acted the way she did had the diary been something her crazy ex-husband had brought home from the pub.

But do lecture us some more, Caz, on how muddled our thinking is.

[erobitha]

My judgement, like others who agree with me is actually based on the evidence at hand both medical and witness statements . That is that james maybrick did not write the dairy and was not jtr .

I guess the gullible are easily fooled.

No. Your arguments are based on your interpretation of statements. That is not evidence. You accuse others of being easily fooled when you can't distinguish facts from opinions.

[erobitha]

My judgement, like others who agree with me is actually based on the evidence at hand both medical and witness statements . That is that james maybrick did not write the dairy and was not jtr .

I guess the gullible are easily fooled.

There is no medical evidence that Jack the Ripper had surgical knowledge. Organ knowledge and understanding of their placement can be obtained from numerous sources with the right level of motivation. Clearly, the killer was not a surgeon because the cuts to remove any of the organs were not precise.

The only precise cutting was the method of throat-cutting, again a skill that is taught or shown with the right level of motivation to obtain the knowledge or observe it, hence why the police were interested in Jewish butchers. Although, the technique the Jews used to cut throats was reserved for cattle. So it was either a Jewish Cattle butcher or someone who had been taught or learned this technique.

Show me evidence that contradicts with any of the above.

[FISHY1118]

The only nonsense is by people with no ability to look beyond the superficial and make their own judgements based on actual evidence and not the opinions of others.

As much as Orsam and RJ are wrong on some rather key fundamentals, they at least try and argue with some form of evidence based debate.

Too many on here baa like sheep with no research or do any discovery themselves.

Keep on being a sheep.

My judgement, like others who agree with me is actually based on the evidence at hand both medical and witness statements . That is that james maybrick did not write the dairy and was not jtr .

I guess the gullible are easily fooled.

[FISHY1118]

An obsession with internal organs would suffice as enough motive to study things like, I don’t know, anatomical venuses. So knowing where the organs are is one thing.

The knife used to extract them was not exactly fit for purpose for the task. The cuts were not exactly surgeon standard. He knew what he wanted and he had a knife to get them.

Why does that rule Maybrick out exactly?

Can you show any evidence of that Maybrick had any obsession with human internal organs ? Or like most things Maybrickian are we just speculating and guessing with what if and maybe,s ?

Regarding the cuts as you put it , id just refer you to Dr Frederick Brown post mortem ,based on the fact he examined the body ,did the post mortem ,you know he was only there at the time .!

[caz]

like what effing difference does it make? ok, ill indulge Anne wrote it dictated by Mike who came up with the idea and the text.

Ridiculous.

Pull the other one.

Why don't you eff off to Pub Talk if you don't like it here?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"Intriguing"?

Are those your words or Bruce's words, Muddikins?

He said if it was a modern hoax, it would be the summit of his "literary efforts"

And he didn't deny that it was a hoax (he thinks it IS a hoax) and he certainly didn't describe it as plausible confession by a serial-killer.

But hey, if you want to think dropping the literary effort bomb is an endorsement of the Diary being real, feel free to indulge yourself with more self-deception.

And I think Bruce's story of anagrams certainly does have bearing on his ability as a literary critic.

If he can read a letter in the Pall Mall Gazette and think it is a Masonic anagram, then I humbly suggest he's loopy when it comes to judging the meaning of writing.

As Caz has recently reminded us, Martin Fido, Oxford don, teacher of writing at Boston College, well-known radio broadcaster, etc etc, was so impressed by the diary's literary competency that he wondered if it was even too sloppy to be Anne Graham's work.

So there appears to be a difference of opinion. I'll stick with Martin, though I do think it IS Anne's literary work, or largely so.

As for the rest of your childishness, feel free to **** right off.

Do you think your antics are casting the Diary in a good light?

How could the 'antics' of anyone today cast an inanimate object in a good, bad or ugly light? It is what it is. Mike Barrett tried his best, bless him, to cast it in whatever light suited him in the moment, but only managed to cast himself in the role of inveterate liar and scally.

Those who repeatedly embarrass themselves by parroting the 'Barretts wrote it' rot are casting themselves in the poorest light, and I have to wonder if they are trying to convince themselves, because they aren't getting past the fly swatters.

'If this Diary is a modern forgery - which I am sure it is not - and if I were the faker, then I would consider it to have been the summit of my literary achievement.'

This is what Bruce wrote. It is a self-deprecating statement, which I realise is a difficult concept for those who never question their own abilities, or make really, really vacuous claims about the diary being simple for anyone at or above a Janet and John level of literacy to have faked, making themselves many thousands of pounds in the process.

I know I could never have written it, even if I had the inclination and someone offered me a million pounds. Yet we have posters here who can't string a dozen words together correctly or coherently, but still not as woefully as Mike's unaided efforts, wanging on interminably about how easily he could have done so. By implication, they must actually believe that they could have written it themselves. Their lack of humility and self-awareness is truly breathtaking.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The 'admitted' bit is just a crutch for an argument which has no leg to stand on, Cazzykins ...

You think, Your Royal Ikyness?

Didn't Mike Barrett get all the big calls right, when all the other one-liners are said and done to death?

Joking aside, do we know if this man, who freely admitted his guilt, while the Spanish Inquisition was still on the bus and held up in traffic, ever knowingly lie or try to mislead anyone? Would he ever have changed his story for a perceived advantage to himself, or to get one over on all those who had crossed him? Does this even sound like our Mike?

He 'admitted' to faking the diary, which is a sure sign of remorse. I think I get it now. He was sorry for what he did to Doreen, Shirley, Robert and Feldy, and all who suffered from his stuff and nonsense. No doubt he was saving his bitterest regrets for the missus, coerced against her will and better judgment into handwriting his hoax with one hand tied behind her back, Fido stylee. As the tears began to drip onto his Daffy David, did Mike remember his only child, obliged to witness his infamy while trying to commit Matilda by Hilarious Bollox to memory for prep?

I'm welling up now [sniff]. Someone pass the tissues.

And for the love of God, someone give that man a preposterous humorous posthumous knighthood!

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

But in all likelihood the Barretts did write the diary.

[caz]

I think there is an especially antagonistic bunch of naysayers whose sole contribution is to throw out one-liners and then rinse and repeat. It's hard to understand what they get out of it, but they must get something out of it or else presumably they'd not do it.

The intelligent ones (and Rhog Palmer) at least make an effort at making an argument stick.

Either way, I'm here to repel every single one of them, however long this bloody war lasts ...

Take back control!

We've had enough of experts!

Get Brexit done!

Stay indoors.

Eat out to help out!

We're going to stop the boats!

STOP THE BOATS!

STOP THE BOATS!

It wasn't me!

Witch hunt!

Kangaroo court!


There you are, Ike. Repel those one-liners if you are such a smart arse!

The Barretts wrote it!

Who let those bloody flies in?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why should anyone give a rat's ass what "Brucey" thinks about the Maybrick Hoax?

Why should anyone give a rat's ass what RJ, Wheaty, FISHY or Abby think about anything diary related?

Why should they indeed? I don't agree with the opinions of any of the above when it comes to who wrote the diary, including Bruce. But RJ knew that already when he typed that lengthy rant in some odd font, full of sound and fury, signifying bugger all as usual.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I suspect this is why Lord Orsam has announced his retirement from the Diary Fiasco. He knows y'all have no answers...

That one made me chuckle.

RJ has had more retirement parties from this place than hot dinners, but he doesn't know when to give up.

He admits to not knowing why Lord of the Flies has decided to cash in his chips, but comes up with a nonsensical reason. Does he honestly think the good lord ever wanted answers from anyone? He thought he had them all, but taking early retirement can indicate an awareness of not being up to the job any more and, in some cases as we have seen recently, finding your pants round your ankles and not waiting to have your bottom spanked for indecent exposure.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Can anyone imagine what would make Boris Johnson offer an unsolicited confession to having ever done anything wrong in his entire life? Even with pie crumbs all round his mouth, he would deny eating pie, or blame someone else for ambushing him with pie. "I wasn't there." "It wasn't me."

Or, more likely, "I didn't know that it was a pie".

If Mike ever stole something valuable, or made loads of money out of someone else's stolen property , would he ever have confessed to it in a million years?

Whilst it would be tempting to see in Barrett's 'confession' the actions of a lying, stupid, and vengeful twat, we should at least acknowledge that Barrett sought to take the moral high ground by claiming that he had been fighting a lone crusade since December 1993 to expose the scrapbook as a hoax, clearly much to his financial detriment. Indeed, he was so impeccably upright that he wrote off what could only have been many more large cheques from Shirley's publishers. If that is true, then he would well deserve it if the people of Liverpool tore down the Liver Birds and replaced them with effigies of the great man from Goldie Street. Given Mike's past, they could name them the Gaol Birds.

But do we believe that he had suddenly had a Road to Damascus moment?

Did he buggery!