New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Scott Nelson]

Would you mind focusing on my question? What I asked you was: What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

Obviously to suggest that it wasn't the sort of thing just anybody could do 'successfully'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did I say no-one else could possibly do it?

Would you mind focusing on my question? What I asked you was: What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

[Scott Nelson]

Did I say no-one else could possibly do it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did I say that?

What you said was: "Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me."

What was the purpose of saying that you'd tried it yourself and that it didn't work too well for you?

[Scott Nelson]

Surely you think that because you can't successfully disguise your handwriting with your other hand, no-one else can possibly do it?

Did I say that?

[rjpalmer]

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

Hi Scott, well, to each his own.

I agree that the diary dates to after 1988, but I don't agree that 9 March 1992 is a magical cutoff date. I doubt that the physical diary even existed when Barrett made that phone call, and I also doubt that Doreen was the first literary agent that Mike called. How may anonymous would-be writers hit paydirt on their very first phone call?

Back in the day, even the diary's supporters were bothered by the five-week delay between the excited call from "Mr. Williams," claiming he had The Diary of Jack the Ripper, and Barrett showing up in London fully five weeks later.

And by all appearances Barrett fobbed off an immediate meeting with the claim that he needed to 'go to York.' We've seen no evidence that Barrett went to York. I think he was mucking around for a suitable blank diary as evidenced by Martin Earl's advertisement.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No I really can't. Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me.

Surely you think that because you can't successfully disguise your handwriting with your other hand, no-one else can possibly do it?

[rjpalmer]

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

I think you're selling Anne Graham short, Scott.

All that Formby/Yapp 'oral tradition' stuff with the diary smuggled out of Battlecrease in a laundry basket shows Anne had the creative skill to execute the diary. And the bit about visiting the shipbuilder's grave as a child, etc. It doesn't take a Sigmund Freud to realize she was projecting her own literary ambitions onto her far less talented husband.

We are scolded about "not knowing Anne from soap" but we merely need to read her long prepared speech in Shirley's second edition or the preface to Anne's own book to see that she had literary skill. Feldman thought so highly of Anne that he suggested she write a biography of Florence (which she did) and admitted that he had "underestimated her literary ability." (Inside Story, p. 262) Are the contributors here doing the same? Does anyone posting here want to claim they know Anne better than Feldman did?

RP

[Scott Nelson]

They've convinced themselves that the Johnsons' watch is old--possibly genuine--and thus the diary must be old, too--despite overwhelming evidence that it isn't.

In my opinion, they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Hey RJ, I don't think Robert Smith's diary was created any earlier than 1988 and no later than March 9th, 1992.

[Scott Nelson]

It's not just my opinion, Scott, a lot of people have commented on the curious similarities. I think everyone can see it, even you. As for the left v. right handed issue, have you never heard of people with the ability to write with both hands, doing so with their other hand to disguise their handwriting?

No I really can't. Yes, I've heard of people disguising their handwriting by writing with the other hand. I've tried it myself. Didn't work too well for me.

[Scott Nelson]

And so we're back to the heart of the issue. What is it that makes you think he couldn't have done it?

He could have done it. I never said he couldn't have.

[rjpalmer]

They've convinced themselves that the Johnsons' watch is old--possibly genuine--and thus the diary must be old, too--despite overwhelming evidence that it isn't.

In my opinion, they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

What I meant here, of course, is that the etchings on the watch are old.

It's far easier and safer for the true believers to focus on the watch because we know so little about it, and scratches can't be conclusively dated.

[rjpalmer]

I don't know why it's so hard for some to believe that a conman and published writer and his wife could have written the diary.

They've convinced themselves that the Johnsons' watch is old--possibly genuine--and thus the diary must be old, too--despite overwhelming evidence that it isn't.

In my opinion, they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know why it's so hard for some to believe that a conman and published writer and his wife could have written the diary.

Neither do I John.

[John Wheat]

It's not just my opinion, Scott, a lot of people have commented on the curious similarities. I think everyone can see it, even you. As for the left v. right handed issue, have you never heard of people with the ability to write with both hands, doing so with their other hand to disguise their handwriting?

I don't know why it's so hard for some to believe that a conman and published writer and his wife could have written the diary.