Hi Abby, Just passing this on from Keith.
Thank you for your welcome and questions. Although Iím not
officially on board yet Ė and it is of course subject to the
Administrators approval as to whether my application is
accepted Ė Iíve asked James if he can smuggle in my response!
At the Liverpool Conference I gave my position as follows Ė
that I did not believe James Maybrick penned the Diary
and neither did I believe it was physically written by Michael
Barrett. I hear the arguments that JMís handwriting could
have altered if internal and external influences were at
work. The same observation must therefore apply to Michael
Barrett. From memory I think I am correct in recalling that
Mike J.G. put up a post where he argued that, although an
individualís personality might dramatically change under
abnormal circumstances and extreme psychological trauma
and that personís handwriting have no resemblance to his
normal, conventional style, nevertheless certain characteristics
might remain consistent Ė letter formation and structure Ė spacing Ė
spelling maybe. I donít know if this is correct but Mike J.Gís
post was one which chimed very much with my thinking Ė although
he expressed it far better than I could. We now have copious
examples of Maybrickís formal hand and in a perfect world,
with funds available, I would be pushing for an expert, scientific
comparison analysis of the many examples we have of
Maybrickís formal handwriting against the handwriting in
Do I believe the Diary is an old hoax?
Do I believe the Diary is a new hoax?
Do I believe the Diary is the real deal?
I cannot, Iím afraid, answer any of those questions. I canít get that far
because the Diary is still a suspect document without a provenance.
Up until circa 2004 I accepted Anne Grahamís story, albeit it with reservations
as there was no evidential support. But, for me, it was the only game
in town. Mike Barrett had failed to conclusively prove he faked the
Diary. His sworn affidavits still stand though and cannot be ignored.
Moreover, Anneís story, no matter how strange the circumstances
and motive for her secreting the Diary to Mike via a third person who
she hoped would not reveal it came from her, at least took the
chain of transmission back to Tony Devereux and then back to her.
That is where the trail ended for me in 2002. In 2004, Bruce Robinson
commissioned me to help with the research on his book and very much
as a side issue just asked me to take another look into the Diaryís
provenance. We discussed the stories associated with the electricians.
I had not been part of Paul Feldmanís investigation into the electricians
and had accepted Paulís conclusion that they were just a bunch of shysters
out to fleece him for whatever money they could. But I had never fully
bothered myself with the reasons why Paul had eliminated the electricians
from his enquiries. It was only when I had sight of the timesheets and saw
the coincidence of that March 9th 1992 date( when work, apparently
involving floorboards being lifted in the room where James Maybrick died)
on the same day that Michael Barrett (using a false surname of ĎWilliamsí)
telephoned a London Literary Agent claiming he had the Diary of Jack The
Ripper, did I wonder whether the two events might be connected.) That was
the moment I began to seriously wonder why Paul Feldman had taken the
electricians out of the frame?
Somewhat feebly I always return to Paul Beggís three key questions posited
Who wrote the Diary?
When was it written?
Why was it written?
Iím sorry if you donít find my reply satisfactory but perhaps it will give you
a glimpse into my position. I hope so.
What is your own answer to your three questions?
Best Wishes, Keith.
Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.