Who were they?

[erobitha]

Anne could have twisted the provenance story slightly to keep the heat away from her family, with her getting the Diary from Devereux to give to Mike.

That I believe she did, Scott. You and I may have different theories on why, but Anne's "in the family" story is simply not credible. I don't think it was credible even when she said it, but I can see her motive for going along with Feldman's enthusiasm.

There is nothing but dead ends.

[Scott Nelson]

Anne could have twisted the provenance story slightly to keep the heat away from her family, with her getting the Diary from Devereux to give to Mike.

[rjpalmer]

Jay, Old Man, did you even read Keith Skinner's latest message that Ike uploaded to this forum?

Here it is again

The only corroboration we have for Mike's story is from Anne who said she gave it to TD to give to Mike. Like it or not, that story still stands and the only person who can disprove it is Anne. If her story is accepted then it has to be weighed against the electricians' evidence, plus other evidence not yet in the public domain, but will be once it has been objectively assessed, tested and evaluated.

Keith is saying Anne's story "still stands."

He is saying she is the "only person who can disprove it."

He is also saying that the legitimacy of her story is still being "assessed and evaluated."

But how can Anne be the only one with the ability to disprove the Tony D provenance, if there is enough evidence and documentation to prove "to the court of history" that her story is false and the diary really came from Dodd's floorboards? Tony wasn't alive on 9 March 1992.

It's an obvious contradiction. Which is okay. It's okay that Keith has backtracked and now realizes the 'floorboards' evidence wasn't as strong as he believed it was 15 years ago, or so.

But clearly, Caroline Brown has exaggerated the worth of this secret evidence that proves the Battlecrease provenance, because Keith himself now admits that only Anne can disprove what she has already reported.

Thus, as Abby rightly notes, we are asked to debate information that we are not only not privy to, but information which Keith Skinner himself acknowledges is not conclusive, and not even worth running past Anne Graham for her rebuttal.

As such, and as Abby rightly notes, there is no point in going on and on about it.

[erobitha]

buttercup

[caz]

All in the best possible taste, c.d..

(Thank you, Kenny Everett.)

Reminds me of how some people will take offence over the relatively trivial, but then forget to take offence over something much worse.

When Cuddly Ken introduced his famous character, Cupid Stunt, he got away with it. He said he had originally wanted to call her Mary Hinge, but had to change it when Auntie Beeb had a fit of the vapours.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

She has made it abundantly clear to anyone who has attempted to discuss the diary with her that she does not want to talk about it. Chris Jones will testify the same, as will his co-author Daniel Dolgin. I can only assume Keith has respected that very vocal opinion and has left her alone. That is a testament to his character, I believe

Dolgin & Jones' book came out last year, buttercup, or there abouts.

Keith made his 'court of law' and 'court of history' comments many, many moons ago. He could have called her then.

But all we get is excuses. You're giving another.

[erobitha]

No, he hasn't.

Chris Jones didn't work with Anne for years, write letters in her defense to the Ripperologist, announce that he believed her provenance story, recommend her employment to Bruce Robinson as a researcher, write a forward to her book, or coauthor an entire book sympathetic to her account of events. Nor does Jones claim he has information outside the public domain that would 'prove to the court of history' that Anne is lying.

Why not make that phone call? I'd do it myself, but don't you think it would be more valuable coming from a friend, or former friend, and a celebrated researcher rather than just some random 'mudlark' on the internet?

Seems like an obvious enough course of action. I'll check back in two years to see if it has happened yet, provided Vlad hasn't blown us to hell before then.

She has made it abundantly clear to anyone who has attempted to discuss the diary with her that she does not want to talk about it. Chris Jones will testify the same, as will his co-author Daniel Dolgin. I can only assume Keith has respected that very vocal opinion and has left her alone. That is a testament to his character, I believe.

I would personally drag Anne over the coals the minute I could, but I am pretty sure she would slam the phone down on me in seconds. I can only assume Keith being Keith, will only take that step if he wishes to when he feels the time is right and in the manner he feels is appropriate.

This is not about placating an impatient baying mob on the internet (of which I am a member). It is about doing things properly and thoroughly.

[rjpalmer]

I can only speak for myself, but if I had a friend that I once believed and defended in the face of public ridicule, and did so for years, and later found evidence to prove that this friend had been lying and lying repeatedly, I'd certainly want to hear her explanation and give her a chance to defend herself against what has since become a very public accusation. That this has not (apparently) been done strikes me as odd.

The only explanation I can think of is that the 'evidence' of his counter-provenance is so weak that he dare not confront her with it.

[rjpalmer]

Maybe Chris Jones has already answered that question for you RJ.

No, he hasn't.

Chris Jones didn't work with Anne for years, write letters in her defense to the Ripperologist, announce that he believed her provenance story, recommend her employment to Bruce Robinson as a researcher, write a forward to her book, or coauthor an entire book sympathetic to her account of events. Nor does Jones claim he has information outside the public domain that would 'prove to the court of history' that Anne is lying.

Why not make that phone call? I'd do it myself, but don't you think it would be more valuable coming from a friend, or former friend, and a celebrated researcher rather than just some random 'mudlark' on the internet?

Seems like an obvious enough course of action. I'll check back in two years to see if it has happened yet, provided Vlad hasn't blown us to hell before then.

[erobitha]

If Keith really had convincing evidence that the diary was sold to Mike Barrett by Eddie Lyons--he informed us he could prove it to the 'court of history' many years ago--why wouldn't he simply call Anne on the phone and present this evidence to her and allow her a chance to admit it or deny it or give a full and candid account of what really happened?

Doesn't he think she deserves the opportunity?

Why has this candid conversation never taken place? Why is he evidently hesitant to make the call? It is such an obvious thing to do.

Instead, nothing ever happens. The saga of the diary just goes on year after year, boring everyone to tears--even the tiny group of people--pro and con--who would be interested in seeing a resolution.

For all we know, Vlad Putin could blow the world into a nuclear winter next week, but still...no phone call to Anne. Yet even Anne, in her long tape to Feldman said that Ripperology is trite and doesn't matter in the face of the threats of nuclear annihilation, global warming, etc., so why wouldn't she simply reveal the mundane and trite facts of the origins of an obvious hoax and be done with it? She is hardly a 'one dimensional' person, and the perspective of twenty years may have changed how she thinks about it.

But I'm guessing that phone call will never happen.

See you on the outside.

Maybe Chris Jones has already answered that question for you RJ.

[rjpalmer]

I just noticed from one of Keith’s posts /emails that there is some inside info which hasn’t been made public and won’t be for a while. So I think it’s pointless to debate the diary and it would best to hold off the debate until such time this info is made public, no??

If Keith really had convincing evidence that the diary was sold to Mike Barrett by Eddie Lyons--he informed us he could prove it to the 'court of history' many years ago--why wouldn't he simply call Anne on the phone and present this evidence to her and allow her a chance to admit it or deny it or give a full and candid account of what really happened?

Doesn't he think she deserves the opportunity?

Why has this candid conversation never taken place? Why is he evidently hesitant to make the call? It is such an obvious thing to do.

Instead, nothing ever happens. The saga of the diary just goes on year after year, boring everyone to tears--even the tiny group of people--pro and con--who would be interested in seeing a resolution.

For all we know, Vlad Putin could blow the world into a nuclear winter next week, but still...no phone call to Anne. Yet even Anne, in her long tape to Feldman said that Ripperology is trite and doesn't matter in the face of the threats of nuclear annihilation, global warming, etc., so why wouldn't she simply reveal the mundane and trite facts of the origins of an obvious hoax and be done with it? She is hardly a 'one dimensional' person, and the perspective of twenty years may have changed how she thinks about it.

But I'm guessing that phone call will never happen.

See you on the outside.

[caz]

The way it has turned out is that my detractors here are unable to produce any evidence that the adjective 'one-off' was in use in 1889.

That means that the 'Maybrick' diary is a forgery - or had you not noticed?

The way it has turned out is that a small group of posters on this thread who seem to think they own it, and that anyone who sees things otherwise is unwelcome, have been making bitchy comments about me and to me.

Like them, you make it look as though my participation in this discussion has been a disaster.

So let us look at what has actually happened during the 49 hours since I dared to enter this discussion about the Maybrick diary's authenticity.

My very first comment, # 284, received a vote of approval.

My # 298 also received a vote.

So did my # 306.

So did my # 311.

So did my # 317.

So did my # 320.

So did my # 325.

So did my # 332.

So did my # 352.

So did my # 378.

My # 387 received two votes.

RJ Palmer in # 389 wrote about me: 'Actually, he's right.'

In # 406, Abby Normal accepted that I was right on the very point that my detractors here insisted I was wrong.


It appears that you are not correct.

It's all about you, isn't it?

If I whinged on about all the 'bitchy' comments that have come my way since my first ever post in 1999, it would completely drown out any discussion about the diary, polite or otherwise.

But do carry on bitchin' 'bout the bitchin', because I'm sure many people would like the discussion to be drowned out by fair means or foul.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You may.

I had already made it abundantly clear that I would welcome polite remarks rather than those of the kind to which I have become accustomed.

The fact that someone else previously pointed out something does not mean that it is somehow wrong when I point it out.

As for your description of me as 'Johnny-Come-Lately', it was made clear to me before anyone said anything about my 'discoveries' having been made long before that my presence on this thread is not welcome.

I refer to:

'But some friendly advice, you might simply want to say "oops, wrong room. Sorry about that" ' (#286 from c.d.)

the friendly advice which obviously is not as friendly as it purports to be, and


'You might regret stepping foot into this world.' (# 288 from erobitha)

which seems considerably less friendly, and


'So, be as smarmy as you want, but you are not up on all the facts.' (# 301 from erobitha)

and

'I assume that he or she is confused...That's what happens when you don't think things through.' (# 329 from Iconoclast)

or

'Can anyone help him or her make sense of the conundrum they just wandered into there?' (# 338 from Iconoclast)


I thought the whole point of a discussion forum is to welcome new contributors, not to tell them that they are unwelcome.

But what is your purpose?

Is it to establish the truth about the so-called Maybrick diary, or is it that you see yourself as

'The one whose mission in life is to defend the Maybrick scrapbook (and the Maybrick watch) against all stupidities, ill-thought out 'arguments', and fashionable misunderstandings.'

I ask why you defend the Maybrick scrapbook by writing

'PS The expression one-off was almost certainly in some sort of nascent use by 1888...'

without offering any evidence in support of your assertion.

As for your description of me as 'Johnny-Come-Lately', if one of us is a 'Johnny-Come-Lately', it is you - a latecomer to the world of polite discussion.

God, save and preserve us from the paper-thin skinned poster. You can expect a 'polite discussion' when you learn to bloody well disagree politely.

If the example of 'topping oneself' is anything to go by, resulting in an example from 1877 topping the original 'earliest' one from 1958, then a 1934 instance of a 'one-off' ['one off' in the diary] could well indicate that the phrase was both known and used in some form and in certain contexts considerably earlier than we have been led to believe.

Interestingly, just as 'topping oneself' is explained for the readers of the 1877 article, 'Sir Jim' describes in the diary how he explained his own use of a 'one off instance' to Florie. Take another look. He apologised for hitting his wife, brushing it off as 'a one off instance', which he regretted, then 'assured' her it would 'never happen again'.

It's as if she wasn't expected to grasp what he was talking about, so he said it but then had to spell it out for her.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"Topping oneself" was not exactly a victorian expression either, the author of the article had to explain it to the readers...

It was originally claimed, with considerable appeal to authority, that the expression, referring to suicide by hanging, did not exist in print before 1958.

It would be really rather refreshing if, for once in their lives, the Barrett hoax conspiracy theorists did not shift the goal posts to try and raise the dead, but would concede with good grace that this was an error to the tune of eighty years. Newspapers were meant to be read, even back in 1878, when all four of my grandparents were babes in arms, so it's not as though the article posted by Gary Barnett would only have been digested by two or three interested readers when it first appeared.

By contrast, Gary might just as well not have posted it on a 21st century message board, for all the notice taken of it by those who like to claim a decent working knowledge of the various issues here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To make my point even better.....


Weekly Dispatch (London) - Sunday 07 April 1912

Even better than that, ero, Gary Barnett found a similar example of topping oneself by hanging in an article from 1878 - which he posted several years ago.

[Edited to correct my error - it was even earlier than that: 1877.]

Love,

Caz
X