Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

I find it so amusing you use Feldman as a bastion of truth to support your claims when it suits you and then declare him an outright fantasist when it suits you.

What is Jay Hartley ignorantly yammering about this time? He's always "amused" by something...when he isn't accusing someone of 'mud larking.'

I asked a question--and it wasn't a trick question--did Feldman misreport Skinner's views? It was hardly an endorsement of Paul Feldman's accuracy let alone claiming Feldman was a "bastion of truth."

As I said--I don't even particularly care. I just find it a little strange that you, Caz, and Thomas have felt the need to make this announcement, sometimes more than once, in recent months.

I could be totally wrong, but to an outsider it looks like Keith is distancing himself from the Maybrick fiasco by aligning himself with the Druittists--but I don't know, of course.

[rjpalmer]

I was further hardened against him because I suspected that he was trying too hard to distance himself from the scrapbook as though somehow he would be tarnished by mere association and his academic career would suffer. Like Pavlov's dogs, I felt that academics had learned from the roasting of Hugh Trevor-Roper to take a distant, non-committed stand unless that stand is the status quo and the thing you are talking about can be said to be a fake which - bizarrely - is probably still to this day seen as the 'safe' error to make.

This is unwarranted paranoia, Ike, and you must realize that you're basically accusing Martin Fido of being insincere, disingenuous, and intellectually cowardly. You're accusing him of not giving his honest opinion out of fear of the academic backlash. There is utterly no reason to believe this--it's just your own unwarranted suspicion.

Yet, you've been challenged on this before. Fido was under a non-disclosure agreement, so his views were given privately. There was no pressure on him to state a politically correct view--he was free to speak his mind, and he did so. In other words, get a grip, Ike. He said he believed the diary was an obvious fake because it IS an obvious fake. As Kenneth Rendell pointed out, it failed on absolutely every level: the provenance was dodgy, the paper was dodgy, the ink was problematic and dodgy, the credibility of those who brought it forward (Mike and Anne) was dodgy (though it was mainly just Mike at this point), the text was dodgy, the language was dodgy, and 'smell test' was a complete and utter thumbs down.

Just so you'll be aware moving forward that Fido's private views aligned with his public views, here are a couple of quotes I was recently given from his private correspondence.


Martin Fido, 8 March 1994:

"Anyone with crime history experience and competence would certainly either conclude the journal was a fake, or pretty obviously be lying in his teeth trying to defend it."

Ouch.

10 January 1995:

"My view that the diary is a hoax has been well known to everyone involved from an early date. Since the Tower Thistle conference I have also consistently believed it to be post-1987, and the Ripperana to be based on Don's book....Loosely, I agree with almost everything Melvin says, and would go so far as to say I think that believing Maybrick to be the Ripper is marginally sillier and slightly more historically incompetent than suggesting that Roslyn D'Onston was."

[Classic Ripperology. Fido agrees with Harris, but can't help using the opportunity to jab his favorite suspect in the ribs.]

[rjpalmer]

I could be totally wrong, but to an outsider it looks like Keith is distancing himself from the Maybrick fiasco by aligning himself with the Druittists--but I don't know, of course.

Of course, an alternative theory is that certain people are privately gushing to Keith about Maybrick's guilt and the authenticity of the diary, and mentioning his preference for Druitt could be a gentle reminder that he doesn't agree with their views.

[erobitha]

What is Jay Hartley ignorantly yammering about this time? He's always "amused" by something...when he isn't accusing someone of 'mud larking.'

I asked a question--and it wasn't a trick question--did Feldman misreport Skinner's views? It was hardly an endorsement of Paul Feldman's accuracy let alone claiming Feldman was a "bastion of truth."

As I said--I don't even particularly care. I just find it a little strange that you, Caz, and Thomas have felt the need to make this announcement, sometimes more than once, in recent months.

I could be totally wrong, but to an outsider it looks like Keith is distancing himself from the Maybrick fiasco by aligning himself with the Druittists--but I don't know, of course.

The only person I ever accused of mud larking is you, Roger. It is with some merit.

You can ignorantly speculate, as you always do, but neither I, Caz or Ike can speak for Keith. We can only pass on information as we understand it through our own interactions with him. I can only confidently claim that Ike and I don't believe Druitt is a better suspect than Maybrick. Who other people chose to consider their preferred suspect is their business.

If you arse so obsessed with finding out which way he leans, perhaps you should contact him and ask yourself?

[erobitha]

Of course, an alternative theory is that certain people are privately gushing to Keith about Maybrick's guilt and the authenticity of the diary, and mentioning his preference for Druitt could be a gentle reminder that he doesn't agree with their views.

I have not had one interaction with Keith where he has declared he believes the diary to be genuine or that Maybrick is a valid suspect in his eyes.

He also has not dismissed the ideas out of hand or scoffed at the possibility either could be true. He is willing to acknowledge there is no conclusive evidence to draw any final conclusions on anything.

It came from somewhere. I can safely say that Keith, Caz, Ike, and I agree that none of us believes Barrett or Grahan wrote it. Outside of that, we all have different viewpoints on specific details.

The mud in which you like to lark.

[John Wheat]

Sorry John, "in my opinion".

Fair enough erobitha.

[rjpalmer]

If you arse so obsessed with finding out which way he leans, perhaps you should contact him and ask yourself?

"If you arse..."? I'll take that as a Freudian slip.

As I already noted, I'm not obsessed--I just couldn't help noticing that this 'Druitt' declaration has become quite prominent in recent memory, and I find it a little strange. Perhaps I err in thinking so.

Anyway, I can't ask Keith personally, so I'll let it drop. He doesn't like me--which is entirely his prerogative---because he thinks I once challenged his competency by pointing out that as late as 1999 he was still claiming that Barrett and Graham had purchased the infamous 'red diary' after Barrett's meeting with a literary agent instead of before it.

Let me clear the air on that point.

This was no indictment of Keith's competency.

The payment for the diary, after all, WAS received in May 1992, so his belief was entirely rational. That's what the documentation showed.

My real point was that his mistaken assumption suggested to me that whatever Anne Graham had told him (and we have been told that at some undetermined point she had muttered something about 'pre-Doreen') she evidently planted the seed for this mistaken belief, since both Keith and Shirley repeated it. She obviously didn't stress the fact that it was 'pre-Doreen' or attempt to make sure there was no confusion on this point.

Thus, it was not an indictment of either Keith or Shirley or their competency or integrity. It was, in reality, an accusation against Anne Graham and her abilities to manipulate others with half-truths or evasions. Nor have I dismissed the possibility that the Barrett's being late payers for this extraordinary purchase was an attempt to leave a deliberately false paper trail. It could also indicate relevant tensions and disagreements behind the scenes in Goldie Street.

I hope that is clear now.

Enjoy your day. Keith apparently doesn't want the help of those who have a different view than his own. I can appreciate that, being sort of that way myself.

[Iconoclast]

Sorry John, "in my opinion".

No, ero b, the Barretts definitely didn't write it!

Wheato, the only case for the Barretts having any involvement in the creation of the Victorian scrapbook text was if you believe a specific subset of the myriad claims he made during the 1990s. To believe they created the text, you have to cherry-pick the bits that work for your theory and ignore the others.

Now, I guess this could be said about James Maybrick's candidature, but that's a different argument. For now, please sleep easy in your bed full in the knowledge that the Barretts had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the scrapbook's text.

And that's definitely, note.

[Iconoclast]

Just so you'll be aware moving forward that Fido's private views aligned with his public views, here are a couple of quotes I was recently given from his private correspondence.

Private correspondence has a terrible habit of finding its way into the public domain. Fortunately for Fido (who grew on me in his latter years, by the way), he was careful to ensure that his private correspondence tallied with his public views and - in both, it seems - he studiously avoided going anywhere near a potential endorsement of the scrapbook. Now, he might have just not believed that there was anything in the scrapbook worth endorsing, fair enough, or else he was sitting just so far over the fence to avoid Paul Begg's affliction.

PS Mr Begg did not actually have the affliction - it was his wee joke.

[Iconoclast]

If you arse so obsessed with finding out which way he leans, perhaps you should contact him and ask yourself?

I do so love your otherwise unintended 's' there, ero b.

Anyway, Roger would not dream of contacting Mr Skinner in this way as - presumably - he would run the risk of appearing to be privately gushing to Keith about Maybrick's innocence?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Enjoy your day. Keith apparently doesn't want the help of those who have a different view than his own. I can appreciate that, being sort of that way myself.

I can't let this go without correcting it. In the years I have known Keith, I have found him to be open to debate on every aspect of Jack's antics. I have found that he unequivocally engages in the debate and does not resist it however tangential or just plain weird he might secretly feel it is, and he certainly doesn't ram his views down your throat nor does he sulk at any comment which appears to run counter to one of his own.

I've even heard it said that Lord Orsam himself - anti-matter to Keith's matter, the Dark Lord, the Prince of Evil, the Chigwell Drainpipe Thief - has helped and accepted help from those who you might imagine are his arch-enemies. This may be the mark of the true researcher. Or maybe it's just the mark of people who know when to stop taking themselves too seriously?

You should try loosening up a bit. You're too tense, mate. Your blood pressure is presumably off the scale. Have you ever tried yoga or transcendental meditation or LSD?

Ike
A Genuinely Concerned Poster

[John Wheat]

No, ero b, the Barretts definitely didn't write it!

Wheato, the only case for the Barretts having any involvement in the creation of the Victorian scrapbook text was if you believe a specific subset of the myriad claims he made during the 1990s. To believe they created the text, you have to cherry-pick the bits that work for your theory and ignore the others.

Now, I guess this could be said about James Maybrick's candidature, but that's a different argument. For now, please sleep easy in your bed full in the knowledge that the Barretts had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the scrapbook's text.

And that's definitely, note.

Yeah it's just impossible that Mike Barrett a published writer had anything to do with the creation of the diary.

[Iconoclast]

Yeah it's just impossible that Mike Barrett a published writer had anything to do with the creation of the diary.

Mike Barrett was a published writer? Like an author, you mean? Like he wrote weighty tomes of 500 pages dealing with hard-hitting issues?

Or do you mean he got his name on some articles in Celebrity magazine that he himself admitted his wife had to tidy up before it could be submitted to the editor?

'Published writer', my arse. We all know what you are trying to imply by the use of the term but he was not one of those. He was a bloke with no literary pedigree whatsoever who got himself in on the celebrity magazine interview gig and, frankly, was just about inside his depth at that level, but outside of it for pretty much all of his subsequent attempts at literary output.

In short, he was a dilettante not a 'published writer'.

[rjpalmer]

I can't let this go without correcting it. In the years I have known Keith, I have found him to be open to debate on every aspect of Jack's antics. I have found that he unequivocally engages in the debate and does not resist it however tangential or just plain weird he might secretly feel it is, and he certainly doesn't ram his views down your throat nor does he sulk at any comment which appears to run counter to one of his own.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

When I referred to Keith perhaps not wanting the help of others who might have opposing views, I was referring to his promise to give 'Lord Orsam' a copy of Mike & Anne's typescript so he might look it over and see if he notices anything worthy of comment. He has a keen eye and talent for this sort of thing.

Keith later withdrew his original offer--his prerogative, of course--stating something along the lines that it would 'only be used to damage the diary further.'

If Keith has no pony in the race and is only after the truth, this is a somewhat strange comment. Why he thinks 'Lord Osram' examining this document would be unwelcome I cannot begin to understand, other than, as I said, he is not interested in hearing the viewpoint of someone pursuing a different line of inquiry. If, after 30 years, someone is still unable to come to a conclusion about the who, when, and whys of the diary, I would think he would welcome Lord Orsam's input. A fresh set of eyes and all that.

As for Martin Fido, your comments are ridiculous. Provide us with the name of a single person who knew Martin that believed that he didn't honestly believe the diary was a hoax. You see secret believers in the scrapbook in the same way that Paul Feldman saw secret Maybricks everywhere he looked.

[John Wheat]

Mike Barrett was a published writer? Like an author, you mean? Like he wrote weighty tomes of 500 pages dealing with hard-hitting issues?

Or do you mean he got his name on some articles in Celebrity magazine that he himself admitted his wife had to tidy up before it could be submitted to the editor?

'Published writer', my arse. We all know what you are trying to imply by the use of the term but he was not one of those. He was a bloke with no literary pedigree whatsoever who got himself in on the celebrity magazine interview gig and, frankly, was just about inside his depth at that level, but outside of it for pretty much all of his subsequent attempts at literary output.

In short, he was a dilettante not a 'published writer'.

Having articles published in a celebratory magazine makes Mike Barrett a published writer wether you like it or not.