Who were they?

[John Wheat]

this entire thread, and any other diary post, belongs in pub talk. The diary has as much to do with ripperology as Bigfoot does with zoology lol

Hi Abby. I've come to the conclusion that it's pointless trying to educate the stupid.

[caz]

STURE BERGWALL MADE IT ALL UP

As reported by The Guardian, Sture Bergwall was until very recently Sweden's most famous serial killer. Claiming to have an alter ego named Thomas Quick, Bergwall confessed to dozens of murders throughout the 1990s, and was convicted of eight of them. He's lived in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane for most of his adult life, and is about as famous in Sweden as one can be.

In 2001, Bergwall suddenly withdrew from public life. A reporter became curious and began looking into Bergwall's life and crimes—and discovered something shocking: There was no actual evidence that Bergwall had killed anyone. All the police had were his confessions, and many of those had been offered while Bergwall was heavily medicated. When asked about these inconsistencies, Bergwall easily admitted he'd lied. He'd never killed anyone.

As it turns out, this should have been obvious. Bergwall's confessions frequently got all the details of his supposed murders wrong, and even a cursory examination of Bergwall's movements over the course of his lifetime showed that several of the murders he'd confessed to would have been impossible for him to have committed. It often took police years of painstaking work to force evidence to conform to his confessions. Bergwall was eventually cleared of all charges and released from the hospital into private treatment.

It's remarkably easy to find this stuff on the internet. This one took me about 5 minutes to decide to quote but there were others too (many others!)?

Here's the rub, though:

There was no actual evidence that Bergwall had killed anyone.
All the police had were his confessions, and many of those had been offered while Bergwall was heavily medicated.
When asked about these inconsistencies, Bergwall easily admitted he'd lied.
Bergwall's confessions frequently got all the details of his supposed murders wrong.

Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar? A man experiencing emotional challenges confesses to something but is unable to prove he did any of it, offers details which are inconsistent, got all the details wrong, and even on occasions admitted he'd lied?

But he admitted doing it! Of course he did it! He must have done it - he confessed, didn't he???

Great post, Ike.

Nobody seems to be curious about why a man like Mike Barrett, who found lying as easy as breathing, would have confessed in the first place if he had faked the diary. Scotland Yard were no longer interested. There's a reason why guilty liars will say or do anything to avoid accepting any blame or responsibility for their own wrongdoing.

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."

It doesn't take a genius to work out that people like Boris and Mike are not the men who will be blamed for nothing.

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?

Would he buggery!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What planet am I on? I'm not delusional unlike many on this thread. The diary is poorly written you make out it's a literary masterpiece. Mike Barret could easily have written the diary.

Ridiculous.

[Iconoclast]

Hey Jay, Eddie wasn't attempting to sell it himself. He didn't have it and it wasn't his to sell. If he told a potential buyer the Diary of Jack the Ripper was for sale, he was likely trying to make a small marketing commission, which Mike duly nixed.

When Eddie supposedly met with Robert Smith with Mike, it may have been to provide a backup for the story of a floorboards provenance. As it stood, Eddie only heard from other electricians about a book being found some time before that March date. If Eddie told Smith he found the Diary under floorboards, it was likely a cover story to boost an acceptable provenance.

Seems like a lot of effort on Eddie's part to sustain a story which implicates him in theft even though he - by your own admission - made no money out of the tale. When he met Robert Smith in The Saddle in late June 1993, if he was innocent of all charges, he could and should have simply said, "I was told a story, Robert, about a Jack the Ripper diary having been found many years ago. I never saw it, and therefore I have no way of knowing if it was true".

Instead, he whittered on about throwing an old book (which he hadn't seen, it seems) into a skip (which didn't exist).

For the record, a year or so ago, I emailed Robert Smith with a photograph of Eddie Lyons and he identified him unequivocally as the man he had met in the pub all those long years ago. Now, you might not trust Robert Smith so this may make no difference to your equivocation over whether this meeting occurred or not (after all, Eddie Lyons denied it), but I have no reason to mistrust Robert and I would politely ask why you would (if you do).

[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!

[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

[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 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

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous.

But in all likelihood the Barretts did write the diary.

[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

[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]

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

[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 .!

[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.

[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.