25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[caz]

Oh, and I'd also like to know why Mike Barrett attempted to acquire (and did acquire) a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

As Mike Barrett is no longer with us - and even when he was with us his word could not be relied upon - I have a feeling you are in for a bit of disappointment on that front, David.

Someone else's motivation is one of the hardest things anyone can fathom, and with Mike it was nigh on impossible.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just a quick comment.

Until we see:
1. what it says?
2. What evidence is presented to back any claims in either direction. We are really whistling in the dark.

I note the publication date is September, so still awhile to go unless there is a massive leak.

Steve

Seems like some people are having massive leaks already, while whistling in the dark, Steve. They could probably do with a Tena and a little lie down.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think, following on from your earlier post, Henry, someone needs to write the book "Jack the Ripper Diary: The False Facts". Now that, I expect, would be a good read.

But nobody needs to read another list of 'false facts' such as: "We know for a fact that Michael Maybrick didn't write lyrics, therefore Mike Barrett got his facts wrong when he dictated the diary to his missus over eleven days, with their daughter watching".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, mine is purchased, and I'm looking forward to it. Getting to see the hand-writing should be worth it, even if the Diarist's prose is awful.

But why wouldn't the diarist's prose be awful, no matter who wrote the thing? When someone sits down over a wet weekend to write Shakespeare's diary, we might expect something a little less awful.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

But why wouldn't the diarist's prose be awful, no matter who wrote the thing? When someone sits down over a wet weekend to write Shakespeare's diary, we might expect something a little less awful.

This is a lovely point. Why would the murderer be a good writer? Think of all the writers in the world who write a lot, that still aren't good at it. A one-off writer/serial murderer would most likely be just as poor at prose.

Mike

[caz]

It is rather confusing. now that ive read it a few times-theyre saying old hoax basically?

But who are 'they', Abby? I hadn't seen that blurb before it was posted, but presumably it was written as much to whet the reader's appetite as to wind anyone up.

Personally I think it's rather clever. It would have caused raised blood pressures from the usual quarters however it was worded. This way, it encourages them to let off steam while giving it free publicity and moaning about it being an illogical waste of their time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

A Timeline of "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" *

1888-The Jack the Ripper murders occur in London

1889-James Maybrick's wife convicted of his murder

1988-Centennial of the Jack the Ripper murders, causing much public interest

1988-1992-M. Barrett thinks of ways to also get in on the action

1992-M. Barrett forges James Maybrick's diary as Jack the Ripper

1992-Present-25 years of bullshit


*crackpots, bloated egos and conmen were probably harmed in the making of this timeline

[caz]

The most surprising thing for me is the involvement of Bruce Robinson. Has he 'jumped ship' from Michael to James now? Or is he saying that it was written by Michael to incriminate James?

Hi HS,

As far as I am aware, Bruce still believes Michael was the ripper, but he financed Keith Skinner's post-2003 investigations into the diary's provenance. Other researchers have been working independently on this over the years, and of course each one is entitled to reach their own conclusions regarding who actually wrote it and why. There appears to be no consensus on such questions, any more than there is a consensus on the best ripper suspects or who wrote all those hoaxed ripper letters.

Part of the problem on this thread seems to be an assumption that there is a diary 'team' who all think and act as one entity. We bring a variety of different viewpoints to the same table, but the topic of this thread is Robert's book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But who are 'they', Abby? I hadn't seen that blurb before it was posted, but presumably it was written as much to whet the reader's appetite as to wind anyone up.

Personally I think it's rather clever. It would have caused raised blood pressures from the usual quarters however it was worded. This way, it encourages them to let off steam while giving it free publicity and moaning about it being an illogical waste of their time.

Love,

Caz
X

whos "they"? whoever is responsible for pedaling this "clever" diary nonsense.

[caz]

I am certain that Barrett did not formulate the first affidavit. It could have been given to him to take to the solicitors for them to transcribe, but the question is who was that close to him at that time? Find the answer and it is a step nearer to find the missing link.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trev,

Well it was private investigator Alan Gray who was specifically engaged [but never paid] by Mike to help him make a convincing forgery confession, so I assume he would have been your man.

Poor chap was led a merry dance that made his head spin with all the twists and turns provided by Mike. Gray eventually gave up trying to make any sense - or any money either - out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

whos "they"? whoever is responsible for pedaling this "clever" diary nonsense.

Sorry, Abby, I thought you were commenting on the blurb.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, Abby, I thought you were commenting on the blurb.

Love,

Caz
X

I was

[caz]

Right. I'd like to hear more from Robinson about all this before drawing any conclusions. I really enjoyed "They All Loved Jack" and if he has a theory about the diary and the two brothers, I am all ears.

But this thread is about Robert Smith's book [see image on first page], which I rather doubt will be giving chapter and verse about anyone else's theories, including Bruce's.

How hard can this be?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I was

If your 'they' was Robert Smith, why did you not write 'he'?

Less confusing that way, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Dear Diary

Another dreadful day. They've rejected 'Ophelia Does Denmark' and instead want me to put in a load of crap about Hamlet and his dead dad. These Philistines don't appreciate true literature. Well, I'm not doing it. I'll give it to Billy Kempe to knock up, like he did all the others. It's getting a bit hairy, though. He's started asking for royalties. He may have to meet with an accident. Pah! I'm off to do some frequenting at the Boar's Head.