New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[John Wheat]

I know, Herlock just can't stay away, despite having no new ideas or new research to post. Just question after question about the same old, same old, that has been answered, addressed, debated, discussed and argued about time and time again.

If he stops asking ancient questions, and raking over old ideas, I'll stop responding to him on this thread.

Fair enough?

Love,

Caz
X

To be fair though there's nothing new being brought forward by those who believe the Diary wasn't written by the Barretts.

[Pcdunn]

Tracing the photograph or photo album after all these years is wildly improbable, but the headstone reads "Chubby, the Dear & Affectionate Little Friend of H & M Pennell."

The 1921 UK Census lists Harriett & Mary Pennell, two spinster sisters, living at 9 Brougham Terrace, Everton, Liverpool.

Mary was a member of the Royal Human Society and ran a cat shelter in Brougham Terrace.

Excellent point. We do not know if the donkey in the scrapbook photo was standing beside a human-sized grave or a pet-sized one.

This doesn't matter, really, as the scrapbook "diary" is supposed to have a much earlier vintage than the photo of the donkey at the grave of the affectionate (cat?) "Chubby" (a name which could well be applied to either of my felines).

[Abby Normal]

whats the name of the donkey?

[caz]

Its not that I don't like it being called an "old book" Caz, it's just that I can't understand why you keep calling it that in quotation marks. I'm trying to work out who called it that. So far, you've not identified a single person who described the diary in that way, let alone someone who can be described as a witness.

It's "the old book", Herlock, and I use speech marks because that description can be heard on the recordings of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses. Maybe all three of us imagined it.

What you've said in your post could be extremely important so I find it hard believe that you're not prepared to expand on it. Which of those interviewed claimed to have personal knowledge of an old book? And what do you mean by "personal knowledge"? I wasn't aware of anyone claiming to have personal knowledge of anything relating to the discovery of the diary. So how they name something is less important than the fact that they claim to have had personal knowledge of something. What is it?

Maybe I should have called it 'inside' knowledge, that has been claimed by the various witnesses. They were interviewed separately, but their individual accounts add up to a consistent whole, which found totally unexpected support in the form of the double event of 9th March 1992, which nobody could have guessed had been sitting there on record all along, just waiting for Keith to stumble upon in 2004. By rights, the documentation should have been able to rule out those early rumours of the diary being found in Dodd's house if they had been false.

Is it possible to find out more about the witness accounts gathered by Keith and Coral? Or is this something else which is secret?

Not 'secret', just the fruits of someone else's labour, research and expense, which I am not at liberty to share until they are ready to do so.

The reason I press the point is because I have a suspicion that all the interviewees were doing was passing on to Keith and Coral second hand rumours which had been started by Feldman and his investigation, so that they weren't witnesses in any true sense of the word. Just electricians who had heard the famous story of Eddie's discovery of Jack the Ripper's diary. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what they called the diary, does it?

Just as I thought. You don't think it matters whether the diary was referred to as "the old book", or "an old book", or anything else, because you have been led to believe that all the interviewees had been 'got at' by Feldman - which is simply not the case.

But, truly, if there was someone who in 1992 had personal knowledge of the discovery of an "old book" in Battlecrease, please do tell us who that was and how they knew about it. It seems pretty important to me.

I doubt anyone could prove it to your satisfaction, but the evidence indicates that Eddie was known by certain individuals, and presumed by others, to have found "the old book" while working in Battlecrease, and this was back in 1992 before Feldman was involved.

Take it or leave it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's "the old book", Herlock, and I use speech marks because that description can be heard on the recordings of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses. Maybe all three of us imagined it.



Maybe I should have called it 'inside' knowledge, that has been claimed by the various witnesses. They were interviewed separately, but their individual accounts add up to a consistent whole, which found totally unexpected support in the form of the double event of 9th March 1992, which nobody could have guessed had been sitting there on record all along, just waiting for Keith to stumble upon in 2004. By rights, the documentation should have been able to rule out those early rumours of the diary being found in Dodd's house if they had been false.



Not 'secret', just the fruits of someone else's labour, research and expense, which I am not at liberty to share until they are ready to do so.



Just as I thought. You don't think it matters whether the diary was referred to as "the old book", or "an old book", or anything else, because you have been led to believe that all the interviewees had been 'got at' by Feldman - which is simply not the case.



I doubt anyone could prove it to your satisfaction, but the evidence indicates that Eddie was known by certain individuals, and presumed by others, to have found "the old book" while working in Battlecrease, and this was back in 1992 before Feldman was involved.

Take it or leave it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

What's the difference in your mind between saying an "old book" and the "old book"? And isn't me saying an "old book" the same as you saying the "old book"? Our use of quotation marks is identical after all.

As to that, I'm just following your quotation marks when you wrote earlier in this thread that "...Mike first clapped eyes on the "old book", as it has been referred to by Battlecrease witnesses."

But I note that on 19 January 2021 you posted this sentence:

"But exactly the same would apply if Mike had no idea what he had, but only knew how he had obtained it and from whom. He'd have been even more ignorant about literary hoaxes and what lay ahead in that case, but understandably wary of it all coming out in Liverpool if he, Michael Barrett, was on the verge of becoming a rich man off the back of an "old book"he had bought from an unsuspecting Saddle regular for a paltry sum."

So correcting me now in the way you are doing for writing the same thing seems a bit strange.

You speak of this being said in recordings "of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses." An investigation into a witness? What does that mean? Are you saying that a witness was interviewed and referred to "the old book". If that's the case, why can't you identify the so-called witness? Why can't you tell us what they witnessed and why they spoke of "the old book"? Who told them about it? Did they see it? The absence of this information is extraordinary.

You do understand what I'm suggesting don't you? It's not that anyone was "got at". It's that someone like Feldman innocently told at least one electrician about his theory that Eddie Lyons found an old book, or the old book (I can't see what difference it makes), being the diary, and this story then circulated amongst the other electricians, and this was then the term used by those same electricians as shorthand for the diary when speaking to Keith and Coral. As such, it's of no value. So I'm just not sure why you keep repeating it as if it has any meaning.

I remind you that you told me that the diary has been referred to as an "old book" by Battlecrease witnesses. I can only repeat my request for you to identify those witnesses and tell me what they witnessed at Battlecrease. Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that they are as imaginary as Scott’s 1992 Korsakoff syndrome.

What I can't understand is that if you're not at liberty to share the fruits of Keith and Coral's labour why you've been doing it by revealing that some of the people they interviewed spoke of an "old book", or "the old book" if you prefer. Are you saying they gave you permission to reveal this particular fruit of their labour but specifically told you that you weren't allowed to mention anything else? I also don't understand what Keith and Coral can possibly be waiting for. Can you enlighten us? Do they have a plan to reveal their findings in the near future? I remember reading that Melvin Harris was accused of suppressing information in the case. How would you describe what is happening now?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

What's the difference in your mind between saying an "old book" and the "old book"? And isn't me saying an "old book" the same as you saying the "old book"? Our use of quotation marks is identical after all.

As to that, I'm just following your quotation marks when you wrote earlier in this thread that "...Mike first clapped eyes on the "old book", as it has been referred to by Battlecrease witnesses."

But I note that on 19 January 2021 you posted this sentence:

"But exactly the same would apply if Mike had no idea what he had, but only knew how he had obtained it and from whom. He'd have been even more ignorant about literary hoaxes and what lay ahead in that case, but understandably wary of it all coming out in Liverpool if he, Michael Barrett, was on the verge of becoming a rich man off the back of an "old book"he had bought from an unsuspecting Saddle regular for a paltry sum."

So correcting me now in the way you are doing for writing the same thing seems a bit strange.

You speak of this being said in recordings "of more than one interview originally conducted by Keith and Coral during their own investigations into the electricians and associated witnesses." An investigation into a witness? What does that mean? Are you saying that a witness was interviewed and referred to "the old book". If that's the case, why can't you identify the so-called witness? Why can't you tell us what they witnessed and why they spoke of "the old book"? Who told them about it? Did they see it? The absence of this information is extraordinary.

You do understand what I'm suggesting don't you? It's not that anyone was "got at". It's that someone like Feldman innocently told at least one electrician about his theory that Eddie Lyons found an old book, or the old book (I can't see what difference it makes), being the diary, and this story then circulated amongst the other electricians, and this was then the term used by those same electricians as shorthand for the diary when speaking to Keith and Coral. As such, it's of no value. So I'm just not sure why you keep repeating it as if it has any meaning.

I remind you that you told me that the diary has been referred to as an "old book" by Battlecrease witnesses. I can only repeat my request for you to identify those witnesses and tell me what they witnessed at Battlecrease. Otherwise the only conclusion I can draw is that they are as imaginary as Scott’s 1992 Korsakoff syndrome.

What I can't understand is that if you're not at liberty to share the fruits of Keith and Coral's labour why you've been doing it by revealing that some of the people they interviewed spoke of an "old book", or "the old book" if you prefer. Are you saying they gave you permission to reveal this particular fruit of their labour but specifically told you that you weren't allowed to mention anything else? I also don't understand what Keith and Coral can possibly be waiting for. Can you enlighten us? Do they have a plan to reveal their findings in the near future? I remember reading that Melvin Harris was accused of suppressing information in the case. How would you describe what is happening now?

hi herlock
perhaps they are waiting to reveal the names and details surrounding the discovery of "the old book" in yet another "new book".