The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Patrick Differ]

Not sure what happened there. As I was saying before fingers got in the way, Kosminski would have been an embicil all his life if that was his diagnosis. They were categorizing patients back then in some level of psychiatry through observation and trends. Doubtful a Street wise prostitute, especially with Leather Apron and attention on immigrant Jews on everyone's mind, would entertain a Kosminski.
in terms of DNA, it would depend on the type and many other historical factors after 135 years.
Kosminski seems to be a front runner but I am skeptical and would have to see the evidence and how it was obtained. Assume the supposed piece of Eddowes chintz skirt is where the DNA was collected??
A Yiddish speaking embicil as the Ripper?

[Iconoclast]

Regarding the DNA test and Kosminski. If He was an embicil

Do you want to try that one again, Patrick?

[Iconoclast]

Gray typing up what he believed should be said while Barratt sits there agreeing with him is not dictation. Can we at least agree that much?

I'm not sure it matters too much either way but - yes - I will concur that Barrett sitting there like he died three weeks ago would not in my book be classed as dictation.

I haven't ignored how the November 5 statement was created.

Good lad. You know it makes sense.

You have ignored the fact that there is no equivalent recording for the typing of the affidavit.

I haven't ignored it at all - I just haven't had cause to address it yet.

Why not?

Well, if you permit me the licence that you evidently afford yourself in spades, it may have something to do with our not having every interaction between Mike Chuckle and Alan Chuckle either recorded or available to hear. For all we can ever know now, there was a recording made and it has since either been lost or not made public. I know I don't have it but maybe someone does. To apply a little more of your licence, perhaps we might imagine that that recording was too incriminating and therefore has been suppressed from public consumption. Who knows?

It suggests to me that Barrett wasn"t present while it was being typed.

See above, but perhaps it does suggest that Barrett wasn't there. Their recordings were primarily in Barrett's house(s) as far as I can recall, unless they were travelling somewhere. If Barrett wasn't in attendance at the creation of his January 5, 1995 affidavit, I'm really not sure where to go from there regarding his role in any mooted hoax.

It probably doesn't matter now anyway if Kosminski has been given the win and top spot on the podium, as it were ...

What on earth will I do to fill my days now???

[Patrick Differ]

Regarding the DNA test and Kosminski. If He was an embicil

[Iconoclast]

Today's DNA test results, from Catherine Eddowes shawl apparently proves, via Kosminskys ggg neice, beyond doubts that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack.
Interesting.

Well, my Irish friend, if it was Kosminski, quite a few regular posters on here have just been royally swatted like flies against an unforgiving wall (not me - I'm far too quick and nimble to be caught in RJ's man-size swatter).

I might have expected a bit more traffic on the subject here on the Casebook. Is the case finally solved, everyone?

[Dublindocker]

Today's DNA test results, from Catherine Eddowes shawl apparently proves, via Kosminskys ggg neice, beyond doubts that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack.
Interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.



It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.



No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.



I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.



What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?



Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?

Gray typing up what he believed should be said while Barratt sits there agreeing with him is not dictation. Can we at least agree that much?

I haven't ignored how the November 5 statement was created. You have ignored the fact that there is no equivalent recording for the typing of the affidavit. Why not? It suggests to me that Barrett wasn"t present while it was being typed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's desperately more complicated than Gray typing on Barrett's word processor with Barrett sitting there agreeing to whatever Gray was typing - as happened on the only occasion we have any evidence for this process occurring (November 5, 1994).

It seems to require Gray to be making notes from one or more conversations with Barrett, going away, typing up his best recollections of his terribly disorganised note-taking, getting pretty much everything wrong (apart from some truly irrelevant 'confirmed' stuff), going back to Barrett, presenting him with the printed-out document and getting him to sign it without reading it out to him or letting him read it.

When you say "I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer" I genuinely was wondering if you were laughing as you typed it.

It's possible, I'll give you that much. Like Billy the white horse trotting through our garden at 4am today.

But does anyone actually find your imagination on this point plausible?

Are you quite sure it was typed on Barrett's word processor, Ike? It sounded very much like a manual typewriter on the tape.

I agree with everything you said about how Gray must have prepared the affidavit (which all seems straightforward to me) except for the bit where you say it wasn't read out to him. I already accepted it would have been read to him but he was likely either drunk or not listening properly.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have agreed with most of it. Like I said, he appears to have believed at the time that he brought the diary down to London in April 1990, later correcting that, still wrongly, to April 1991. Once you start from April 1990 as your reference point for the diary being first shown to Doreen, no wonder everything else about the chronology is wrong.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, now you've introduced the concept of dictation.

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.

Perhaps that's the image you have in your head.

It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.

Perhaps because you think that's how it should have been done.

No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.

Or perhaps because that's how Mike said the diary was written.

I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.

I've explained what undoubtedly occurred.

What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?

Whether you accept that or reject it is up to you.

Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?

[Iconoclast]

I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer.

It's desperately more complicated than Gray typing on Barrett's word processor with Barrett sitting there agreeing to whatever Gray was typing - as happened on the only occasion we have any evidence for this process occurring (November 5, 1994).

It seems to require Gray to be making notes from one or more conversations with Barrett, going away, typing up his best recollections of his terribly disorganised note-taking, getting pretty much everything wrong (apart from some truly irrelevant 'confirmed' stuff), going back to Barrett, presenting him with the printed-out document and getting him to sign it without reading it out to him or letting him read it.

When you say "I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer" I genuinely was wondering if you were laughing as you typed it.

It's possible, I'll give you that much. Like Billy the white horse trotting through our garden at 4am today.

But does anyone actually find your imagination on this point plausible?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gray - in this scenario - could not be muddled up. He was just typing-up what Barrett had told him was true. You can't dictate an incorrect letter to your secretary and then accuse him or her of being confused over the details!

Okay, now you've introduced the concept of dictation.

Perhaps that's the image you have in your head. Perhaps because you think that's how it should have been done. Or perhaps because that's how Mike said the diary was written.

I've explained what undoubtedly occurred. Whether you accept that or reject it is up to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Barrett told Gray Devereux died in 1990 and it was Gray who was muddled over dates? He was just typing-up when Barrett had told him, for goodness sake!

He was typing up what Barrett had told him, sure, but not, I'm certain, what Barrett was dictating.

In other words, Gray had to take all the bits of information that Barrett had given him, perhaps at different times, and type the story up into some sort of coherent narrative.

So, in the first place, everything had to fit around Devereux's death. Barrett must have said Devereux had helped with the diary but, as Gary would have been well aware, he couldn't have done so after his death. So he couldn't have been involved in 1991.

Gray obviously didn't know when the April 1891 diary was received. He must have thought it was in 1990 because otherwise it didn't fit the narrative.

If Gray started off believing, from Barrett's misdating, that the diary was written in 1990 then everything else that followed in the story that he drafted was going to be wrong in terms of the chronology.

I don't think this is rocket science, Ike. I'm suggesting Gray's job was to frame a coherent story around the bare facts he'd been given by Barrett. And of course he messed it up, that's for sure, because Barrett gave him faulty information.

I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer.

[Iconoclast]

If you thought anyone was "crowing" you must have mistaken crowing for laughter at such an own goal.

You're right there - I've definitely been laughing a lot recently ...

[Iconoclast]

To be clear, I'm suggesting what is perfectly obvious. Alan Gray wrote Barrett's affidavit based on what Barret told him during their conversations. So Barrett being muddled up meant Gray got muddled up. It can’t be unrealistic for a guy who was almost permanently p***ed.

Gray - in this scenario - could not be muddled up. He was just typing-up what Barrett had told him was true. You can't dictate an incorrect letter to your secretary and then accuse him or her of being confused over the details!

[Iconoclast]

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Gray "simply punted some dates into the affidavit". He was obviously told by Barrett that Devereux died in 1990 and put that in the affidavit. So we do know for a fact that Gray got muddled over dates.

Barrett told Gray Devereux died in 1990 and it was Gray who was muddled over dates? He was just typing-up when Barrett had told him, for goodness sake!