View Single Post
  #539  
Old 01-20-2018, 09:17 AM
James_J James_J is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Default

Hi Abby, Just passing this on from Keith.



Abby Normal



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

the Diary.



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

in 1992:-



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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote