Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

I think that record is the definitive one.

What causes you to believe that Swanson's version is the definitive one?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Yes, this is obviously true, but also evidence of nothing at all. A foreign butcher may have visited four times and then stopped visiting. That butcher may have - on one occasion - worn attire that looked vaguely (to the human eye, en passant) like that commonly worn by sailors (or, perhaps, commonly worn in our stereotypes of sailors).


I think that Lawende's description of the man has been neglected by researchers, often because it does not accord with their choice of suspect.

I think Lawende knew how to recognise a sailor, even when he was out of uniform, and if he had not been able to do so, he would not have said what he did.



The Goulston Street graffito has been done somewhat to death over the years.


I do not think it has been analysed sufficiently.



There is no guarantee that it was ever intended to make any sense at all, never mind that it contains syntactic clues as to the author's country of origin.


It was taken at the time to be a crude attempt to blame the Jews for the murders.

That makes sense.

There is no guarantee that I am right, but literary analysis has its merits.

It is well-known that foreigners have a tendency to translate from their own language into English.



Your suggestion that it possibly indicates a Germanic source might have value if we knew with confidence that no German immigrants lived in Whitechapel in 1888, but I suspect that someone would disprove that notion very very quickly indeed.


I do not see why that would make any difference.



It is the unreliability of your evidence source which causes me to use the term 'weakness of evidence'. It is evidence, but it is incredibly weak evidence because the alternative interpretations are bountiful (pardon the pun).


You are entitled to your opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to Iconoclast's # 495:

I go by the evidence.

Someone here suggested that Lawende's suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious garb and that Lawende did not notice it.

Naturally, his suspect is Jewish.

If the man seen by Lawende had a fair moustache then he is much more likely to have been German than Jewish.

If he was a sailor, then he is much, much more likely to have been German than Jewish.

If the writer of the graffito was Jewish, he could reasonably be expected to spell 'Jews' correctly.

If he were German, he might have been influenced by the German spelling, which begins 'Ju'.

We do not have certainty but we do have evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What causes you to believe that Swanson's version is the definitive one?

It is reported that substantially the same description was published in the Police Gazette.

I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

I've lived north of the border for the last thirty years and I have no idea what that means!!!

Bampot, yeah!

The rest of it, I've no idea.

East Coast maybe?

Dingies- BS, nonsense, said while making a gesture flicking your ear.

Hee Haw- Nothing. "You ken hee haw", you know nothing.

They're both fairly common expressions? Hee Haw is definitely Glaswegian, perhaps not so 'dingies'.

[rjpalmer]

Also, were there some witness reports suggesting the suspect might have issues with their eyes?

Yes, Gardner and Best reported seeing a man with a black moustache and 'weak eyes' slobbering all over Liz Stride in the Bricklayer's Arms, St. George in the East, on the night of the murder.

Is that how you see it? A middle-class cotton merchant with a young American wife at home, sliding his tongue down the throat of a street woman with no upper teeth?

(No disrespect meant to Liz Stride, of course)

Or was that the composer of The Holy City?

[erobitha]

Yes, Gardner and Best reported seeing a man with a black moustache and 'weak eyes' slobbering all over Liz Stride in the Bricklayer's Arms, St. George in the East, on the night of the murder.

Is that how you see it? A middle-class cotton merchant with a young American wife at home, sliding his tongue down the throat of a street woman with no upper teeth?

(No disrespect meant to Liz Stride, of course)

Yes actually RJ, that is how I see it. Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him? A man known to frequent prostitutes?

Could not possibly happen.

[c.d.]

Yes actually RJ, that is how I see it. Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him? A man known to frequent prostitutes?

Could not possibly happen.

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

[erobitha]

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

Ha ha!

[rjpalmer]

Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him?

Psychological subtly, my man, nuance and subtly.

Donald John Trump might also have a different bedroom from Malaria --excuse me, Melania, I have swampy Norfolk, Virginia on my mind-- but that doesn't drive him into the arms of a bag lady in the seedier parts of Model City (a district of Miami)

We are just joking around, of course, since the diary is an obvious enough fake, but I imagine Sir Jim's tastes might have been a wee bit more refined and bourgeoise. Not to put too fine a point on it, there was a rather large gulf between the nymphs who inhabited Mrs. Hogwood's brothel in Norfolk in the 1870s and the unfortunate bag ladies of SGE in the 1880s.

Of course, there is a 5,000,000,000,000 to 1 shot that you are correct, and Sir Jim did hang out in the Bricklayer's Arms, reciting Crashaw and Herrick and Marvel to the local ladies, but I rather think not. The diarist doesn't strike you as a lover, I trust?

And neither does Jack the Ripper, which is why I tend to discount the suspect named by Gardner and Best as even remotely plausible.

[caz]

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.

Problems with my 'silly belief', RJ?

You sound like you have an intense personal aversion, and that's always a dangerous, less than clinical approach for any seeker of the truth to take.

If that sentence sounds familiar, it's because I stole your own words, addressed to a poster in 'the other place' concerning Druitt, but substituting 'any seeker of the truth' for 'a historian'. I thought they were good words and equally appropriate here, seeing your obsessive quest to reduce to a 'silly belief' on my part what is in fact a wealth of circumstantial evidence, coupled with much credible, consistent witness testimony, which Keith Skinner among many others are finding more and more compelling as the likeliest explanation for how Mike ended up with the diary in his possession on 13th April 1992.

Compared with your fixed auction belief, for which there is not the tiniest scrap of evidence, and relies totally on Mike's lies concerning when he is meant to have obtained the scrapbook and the procedures employed by the auction house, the Battlecrease diary being found in Battlecrease House is looking about as far from a silly belief as the sun setting in the west.

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?

Pot kettle. Where is your explanation for Anne telling her story in July 1994, within a month of Mike's first 'confession', if she knows he can bring them both down whenever he chooses, by spilling all the beans about their roles in the diary's creation? How did that work out in practice? She must have been psychic to have had no worries on that score.

By contrast, her story was far less susceptible to exposure as a lie if she suspected the diary had been stolen two years previously. Feldman wasn't going to poke that particular wasp nest again, and nobody too closely involved was ever likely to admit it now, with nothing to gain and plenty to lose. She knew how angrily Mike had reacted in 1993, to the very idea that his precious diary might rightfully belong to Paul Dodd. Better by far for him to pretend he wrote it himself, so he could take back control from all his perceived enemies. Knowledge of the diary back in 1992, and where it was found, was one thing; being willing and able to prove it would be quite another. Eddie was much more likely to use Anne's story to his own advantage in the future than to try and undermine it. Oddly, his denials have never been accompanied by the observation that Mike's admission to faking it proves he is innocent of taking it.

Anne must have thought she was relatively safe to tell her story in July 1994. Surely even you can see that. So was she quite mad? Why not make another reference to Broadmoor, if it helps? Your belief is that Mike had just begun to spill some criminal beans about the diary's creation, and Anne's reaction was to tell a story that was pretty much guaranteed to send him into a fury? What better way to provoke him into spilling the whole lot if he really had them to spill? Come on, RJ. Put that thinking cap on.

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.

Pot kettle. Your distraction methods are becoming legendary. Whenever you are faced with the tougher questions, you turn the focus back onto questions like the one above, which have been argued back and forth many times over, with no fresh insights offered on your part, and no hope of reaching a resolution or agreement. Let's agree to disagree on this one, shall we, before our readers die of boredom?

[Abby Normal]

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

now thats funny. Reminds me of the Churchill quote

Disgruntled woman: Youre drunk!
WC: Yes but in the morning Ill be sober, and youll still be ugly.

[rjpalmer]

Pot kettle. Where is your explanation for Anne telling her story in July 1994, within a month of Mike's first 'confession', if she knows he can bring them both down whenever he chooses, by spilling all the beans about their roles in the diary's creation? How did that work out in practice? She must have been psychic to have had no worries on that score.

I have answered this question many, many times, and I find it naive and nonsensical.

Barrett was in the throes of alcoholism. He was also telling Team Diary something it didn't want to hear and something that would cost them money out of pocket. He also had little credibility because his stories kept shifting.

As such, it was all too easy for Anne Graham, the sympathetic partner of the two, to come forward and undermine Barrett's confession to a willing audience. And you admit that the story she told was bollocks. It wasn't always that way, was it?

Despite what you insinuate, as Mike's ex-wife and theoretical co-author, she was in a PERFECT position to know under what conditions the Diary was created and what 'evidence' Barrett could bring to bear. Clearly, she felt it would come down to "he said/she said" and she would have the upperhand. Anne was the one who held the purse strings and thus the paper trail. Further, it didn't matter what indications of inside knowledge Barrett HAS provided--you have just dismissed them anyway---the red diary, the Sphere Guide, the notes that avoid mentioning Bernard Ryan, etc. so I don't accept your premise. Not in the least. It doesn't interest me. What interests me is your inability to come up with a coherent reason why Anne would have thrown herself into the thick of the scrimmage if the diary was just something Barrett had brought home from the pub, when, by your own admission, she was "free and clear." If what you say is true, she had far more reason to fear Eddie and the other electricians than Barrett. Take your own advice: put your thinking cap on. She knew no one would come from the woodwork, because she knew they was no one IN the woodwork.

seeing your obsessive quest to reduce to a 'silly belief' on my part what is in fact a wealth of circumstantial evidence, coupled with much credible, consistent witness testimony, which Keith Skinner among many others are finding more and more compelling as the likeliest explanation for how Mike ended up with the diary in his possession on 13th April 1992.

I have no idea why Keith Skinner believes what he believes. He almost never engages with critics of the diary, and has never explained his dismissal of the many indications of the diary's modernity beyond vague indications that he doesn't believe them. He stopped communicating with David Barrat some years ago and hasn't shown any interest in answering the relevant questions Barrat posed. Perhaps someday he will.

In the meantime, we can only judge his "wealth of evidence" by what Robert Smith presented in his 2017 book and there was much monkey-business in those pages, coupled with arguments that are compelling to you, but not compelling to others. Such is life; that's why we disagree.

We are told, from time to time, that there is much more evidence not yet made publicly available, but you've been saying this since the days of John Omlor's purple dragon, and that's a good fifteen years ago.

As you say, there is little point in us discussing the matter yet again and boring everyone to tears, especially since the alleged evidence is still 'private.'

[erobitha]

Psychological subtly, my man, nuance and subtly.

Donald John Trump might also have a different bedroom from Malaria --excuse me, Melania, I have swampy Norfolk, Virginia on my mind-- but that doesn't drive him into the arms of a bag lady in the seedier parts of Model City (a district of Miami)

We are just joking around, of course, since the diary is an obvious enough fake, but I imagine Sir Jim's tastes might have been a wee bit more refined and bourgeoise. Not to put too fine a point on it, there was a rather large gulf between the nymphs who inhabited Mrs. Hogwood's brothel in Norfolk in the 1870s and the unfortunate bag ladies of SGE in the 1880s.

Of course, there is a 5,000,000,000,000 to 1 shot that you are correct, and Sir Jim did hang out in the Bricklayer's Arms, reciting Crashaw and Herrick and Marvel to the local ladies, but I rather think not. The diarist doesn't strike you as a lover, I trust?

And neither does Jack the Ripper, which is why I tend to discount the suspect named by Gardner and Best as even remotely plausible.

In a world of possibilities, anything can happen.

I don't think engaging in sex was on his mind, to be honest. The murders themselves were lust motivated. That is probably true. It was a different sensation he was seeking (I believe).

It was also raining, so I can only assume she caught his fancy due to lack of availability. We know the potential suspect, Best and Gardiner saw was either shaken off or he got what he wanted from Liz when the rain stopped. I believe he got frustrated and was concerned he had drawn too much attention to himself, so scurried off into the night. Only to bump into her again on the street a little later. He wouldn't miss a second opportunity.

Now that is what I also wrote in my book, and I like to think it could be true. I don't have enough evidence to declare it as fact, and probably never will.

It's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is reported that substantially the same description was published in the Police Gazette.

I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

Response to 498 and 499

I go by the evidence.

Someone here suggested that Lawende's suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious garb and that Lawende did not notice it.

Naturally, his suspect is Jewish.


This isn’t evidence. It’s someone’s opinion.


If the man seen by Lawende had a fair moustache then he is much more likely to have been German than Jewish.


And he was just as likely to have been Swedish. Or a man with a brown moustache which looked lighter under a street lamp.


If he was a sailor, then he is much, much more likely to have been German than Jewish.


But there’s no evidence that he was a sailor. He might have been or he might not have been.


If the writer of the graffito was Jewish, he could reasonably be expected to spell 'Jews' correctly.


We have no way of deducing the nationality of the writer.


If he were German, he might have been influenced by the German spelling, which begins 'Ju'.


So an unknown person might have done something if happened to have been German?

We do not have certainty but we do have evidence.


It’s a pity that only you can see it PI.



I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

So when it suits you Swanson is reliable, but when he wrote “Kosminski was the suspect” in the marginalia he was a fantasist?