Barrett and the Diary.

[Graham]

Speaking of IKJ, has he been heard from recently? Anyone have any info?

Cheers,

Graham

[Christine]

Christine,
By what I said .. "as Crashaw was probably 'not his cup of tea", I was
implying that he was most likely not the only person responsible for
producing this hoax diary.
Now John has said that he knew the exact page etc etc .. I find that
a bit unusual, I have favourite quotes but I could not tell you an exact
page number etc .. I'm sure most people are the same.
That exact remembering could well be someone with something to hide ..
ie 'have to remember because I wrote it .. it all came from me' getting the story right,
type of thing.

Victoria

Exactly--if the diary were written by a poetic type he or she would remember the quote from school, or readings, or whatever, not by page number from one particular volume that no one else has ever heard of.

Of course it's always possible that Anne had that sort of memory of the quote, and Michael's only contact with it was helping her look it up. But Michael also was able to point to the ink, (unless I'm mistaken--I guess the ink issue is still being debated) which gives two indicators that he was at least involved in the production. And in his confession, he claims he wrote it but that Anne did the actual handwriting.

So perhaps he is exaggerating his role, but there seems to be a strong case that he was present at the birth of the thing.

[Graham]

Exactly--if the diary were written by a poetic type he or she would remember the quote from school, or readings, or whatever, not by page number from one particular volume that no one else has ever heard of.

Of course it's always possible that Anne had that sort of memory of the quote, and Michael's only contact with it was helping her look it up. But Michael also was able to point to the ink, (unless I'm mistaken--I guess the ink issue is still being debated) which gives two indicators that he was at least involved in the production. And in his confession, he claims he wrote it but that Anne did the actual handwriting.

So perhaps he is exaggerating his role, but there seems to be a strong case that he was present at the birth of the thing.

This thing just keeps on and on going round and round and round...


Mike says he was given the Diary by Tony Devereux, who died shortly afterwards but whose daughters swear that he, Tony, never owned the thing.....

Anne Barrett says she was given the Diary by her dad and passed it to Devereux to pass it to Mike so he, Mike, could 'do something with it', like make a fortune writing a book....God....

Then Mike says he wrote it...then he says he didn't...then he says he did...and so forth....and so on.....

Then Steve Powell crops up to say that his mate Steven Park wrote it in Australia and gave it to Anne who, etc, etc., etc.....

Then it's suggested that Mike thought it all up in the first place and got Anne to write it, but Anne's handwriting is nothing like that of the Diary....

Then someone says the writing is that of a Gerard Kane of Liverpool...

Then...oh, sod it. I'm going to fetch another drink.

Cheers,

Graham

[Omlor]

Hello Diary World Mousketeers,

A year has passed since Keith Skinner announced in public that he has secret squirrel evidence that would prove that the diary came from the real James Maybrick's old house but that, for some unspecified reason, he wouldn't produce that evidence in order to support his claim. For a full year we've seen Caroline Morris repeatedly remind us about "the Batlecrease Evidence" and tell us, among other things, that it lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook." A full year has zoomed by without anyone actually putting up the goods and now, lo and behold, it appears we are perhaps entering a new phase of the old Diary World bait and switch game.

Putting aside for the moment that neither the watch nor the diary are likely even to be shown to qualified experts with access to the latest technologies so that they might at least tell us what is and is not possible concerning testing these dubious artifacts; putting aside the endless delays and deferrals and excuses for not ever actually getting anything done with either of these things; we can if we look hard enough now see the beginning of the disintegration of the "Battlecrease evidence" right before our eyes.

Could it be that this too will turn out to be a big "nothing much"? Can it be that this too will be just an overplayed rhetorical promise that turns out to be a "well, it might mean this or it might mean that but it really tells us nothing for sure"? Could it be that like IKJ and Steve Powell, Keith isn't really going to be able to prove anything after all?

There is new reason at least to wonder.

On another site, no less than Paul Begg offers the following eyewitness revision to the history that was reported a year ago both here and elsewhere and was supported later even by Caroline herself.

Here's part of Paul's latest request to Caroline Morris:


"And why is Omlor now claiming that Keith said he had material that would prove to a court of law that the diary came from Battlecrease House. I was there and I had dinner with Keith that evening and I discussed that statement with him and my memory is that what he said was that he had information from which future Ripper researchers would conclude that the diary came from Battlecrease House. He neither said the diary came from there, nor that it didn't, simply that the material he possessed could lead (perhaps wrongly) to that conclusion. Has anyone else actually asked Keith what he meant?"



"perhaps wrongly"

What?

So after all that, is this what we're finally going to get?

If so, I won't be surprised.

This is just the way this whole affair has played out from the beginning.

The thing is an obvious hoax. The text itself tells us over and over that it's most likely a modern hoax. No one has ever been able to produce any hard evidence of any sort that it is anything other than a cheap modern hoax.

Can it be that even this whole last year has turned out to be yet another moment of false promises and false hope and false warnings about the power of the secret squirrel evidence to exonerate all potential modern forgers?

Or has Paul just got it wrong?

Don't you love this ridiculous farce? It's been going on for fifteen years now and and it's produced at least three silly and chatty and gossipy and randomly speculative amateurish books and at the beginning it put more than a few pounds in the pockets of the liars that brought it forward (I have the receipts if anyone wants to see them), but in the end it's all been and continues to be just a bad game being played around an obvious hoax.

And there's still no end in sight.

Enjoy the day,

--John


"perhaps wrongly" -- I love that.

[Omlor]

It just keeps getting better.

Now, a full year after the fact, Paul Begg offers the following version of events concerning Keith Skinner's announcement about the famed "Battlecrease evidence."

"He did not say that the diary came from Battlecrease House, he said only that that would be a conclusion drawn from documents in his possession - and in the context of his talk the unstated inference is that it didn't come from there."

That's right. It did not come from there!

Of course, Caroline had to object to this remarkable version of events. And she did. Which prompted Paul to ask the simple and obvious and straightforward question:

"does Keith have information showing that the diary really did come from Battlecrease House or doesn't he?"

Now then....

Anyone want to bet that we never get a simple, clear and straightforward answer to this perfectly legitimate question?

Anyone want to bet that all we get is more dancing and game playing?

And what if Paul is right? What if all along, the "unstated inference" behind Keith's announcement was that the Battlecrease evidence shows us, in fact, that the diary "didn't come from there"?

Wouldn't that be just what you expect from all of this?

Wouldn't that be just par for the course here in Diary World?

Wouldn't it be perfect?

--John

[Victoria]

It just keeps getting better

"does Keith have information showing that the diary really did come from Battlecrease House or doesn't he?"

Now then....

Anyone want to bet that we never get a simple, clear and straightforward answer to this perfectly legitimate question?

Anyone want to bet that all we get is more dancing and game playing?

And what if Paul is right? What if all along, the "unstated inference" behind Keith's announcement was that the Battlecrease evidence shows us, in fact, that the diary "didn't come from there"?

Wouldn't that be just what you expect from all of this?

Wouldn't that be just par for the course here in Diary World?

Wouldn't it be perfect?

--John

Yes John, it would be just what one would expect,
and it would be perfect .....

just like your clear, well worded, good humoured, update on 'life'
in Diary World ..
Thanks for keeping it in it's right perspective.
Very enjoyable, lightens the day.

Victoria

[Omlor]

Thanks Victoria,

Of course, over on that other site, where they know I am unable to respond, they are now talking about me and what I've posted here. What an odd way to do things.

In any case, lest people have forgotten what was originally reported concerning the great Battlecrease evidence that Caroline herself has promised will let all modern forgers "off the hook," here are some of the original messages from that Casebook discussion, sent to me by a friend who saw what being said over at the other site and wanted me to have the record:

****************************************


Keith has confirmed with me that the essence of what he said was: ‘if I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House’. He also said that there are no legal proceedings pending.

Regarding Bruce Robinson (hi Cally ), Keith said that he is not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of his services. He said that this book has nothing to do with the diary, which Bruce considers to be a fake. He also said that the investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

caz 23rd May 2007, 10:25 AM


__________________________________________________ ______


However, speaking to people after the Trial, one of the key things that persuaded some of them to vote guilty was the assertion during Keith Skinner’s talk that he was 100% certain that the Diary was linked to Battlecrease. This seemed to imply that the Diary was actually written by James Maybrick, though of course Keith did not actually say that. Indeed, rather confusingly, Keith also said that his colleague, Bruce Robinson, believes 100% that the diary is a fraud.


23rd May 2007, 12:12 PM
Chris Jones
__________________________________________________ ______


Caz - just to make it clear, Keith actually made this statement twice, once when he originally said it and later to clarify what he said for the sake of Jeremy Beadle who obviously misinterpreted it. I copied it down the second time (because obviously the first time I didn't know he was going to say it). What I have quoted has, at most, one or two words incorrect from what he said on that second occasion, because I was writing down each word as he said it.

23rd May 2007, 05:26 PM
ash

__________________________________________________ ______


I don’t recall if the two statements Keith made at the event were identical, word for word, but I do remember quite clearly that he used the word ‘jury’.

However, because I didn’t want to risk getting this wrong myself, I didn’t post until I received an email from Keith himself, from which I was able to post the above version, using his own words written two days after the event (hence the quote marks).

I’m sorry that was the best I could do in the circumstances. But I’m hoping that one of the people actually recording the talks will be able to confirm word for word what Keith said on Sunday.

Here again is the information Keith emailed to me, this time using only direct quotes (which can be compared for accuracy with my previous post):

----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Skinner
To: Caroline Morris
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:15 PM

I am not writing a book with Bruce but working on it, as a paid researcher, when Bruce has need of my services.

Bruce's book has nothing to do with the Diary which he considers to be a fake.

The investigation is ongoing but has nothing to do with Bruce.

There are no legal proceedings pending. The essence of what I said was that if I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House.

Keith

24th May 2007, 12:25 PM
caz


********************************************

So there we have it, even in Keith's own words. And now it's May again. Will the secret squirrel "documents" ever see the light of day? Will the goods ever be put up? Will there ever even be an honest explanation as to why they are being withheld? Will IKJ ever put up his secret squirrel evidence? Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims? Will any of these people actually come forward and show the world that they can back up what they say? Will the diary and the watch ever even be shown to qualified experts so that we might at least learn what is possible in terms of testing using the latest technologies?

Based on the passing of previous years, I think the answer to all the these questions has by now become woefully predictable.

It's a sad game, even if it is sometimes fun to watch.

All the best,

--John

[Victoria]

A woefully predictable, sad, fun game to watch

part quote, from John,

"So there we have it, even in Keith's own words. And now it's May again. Will the secret squirrel "documents" ever see the light of day? Will the goods ever be put up? Will there ever even be an honest explanation as to why they are being withheld? Will IKJ ever put up his secret squirrel evidence? Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims? Will any of these people actually come forward and show the world that they can back up what they say? Will the diary and the watch ever even be shown to qualified experts so that we might at least learn what is possible in terms of testing using the latest technologies?

Based on the passing of previous years, I think the answer to all the these questions has by now become woefully predictable.

It's a sad game, even if it is sometimes fun to watch."

All the best,

--John[/QUOTE]

More interesting inside information for us to ponder John .........

Cannot answer any of these above questions, think you have answered
them yourself with "woefully predictable" ..
however ...
"Will Steve Powell ever offer proof of his claims"?

This one may very well prove to be different, keep an open mind ...

Truly ...
Victoria

[Gideon Fell]

I read an article few years back where it stated that Bruce Robinson was unmasking Michael Maybrick as Jack the Ripper.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Gideon

i heard that too. I think that Keith is helping Bruce (for money) with his research make of that wahat you will!!!

[Omlor]

Hi Mouseketeers,

Just for fun, here's Paul Begg's latest version of what Keith might have meant concerning the secret squirrel "Battlecrease evidence" :

Since Keith does not disclose information without permission to do so, it is to be assumed that if Keith said the diary came from Battlecrease House then he was at liberty to do so and that in all probability it did. The alternative is that he didn’t actually say it did at all, and that was the impression I received at the time. I thought Keith had made the point that inferences can be wrongly drawn from documentary material and that whenever possible one should try to uncover the facts, and that by way of example he said that if ‘I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I am confident the jury would conclude the diary came out of Battlecrease House.’ Whether or not he meant it to be inferred that it did is open to question. I’ve never thought he did. I could be wrong.

"Wrongly drawn." In other words, Paul interprets Keith as saying that to infer that the diary came from Battlecrease from the evidence Keith has might in fact be a mistake, might be wrong.

Of course, Caroline has already told us all that this same evidence lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook" and so she responds to Paul with the following delightfully obtuse explanation:

If Keith was making the point that inferences can be wrongly drawn from documentary material and that whenever possible one should try to uncover the facts, his example was presumably one he had brought with him as part of the talk, eg the details of Mike's advert for a Victorian diary, rather than what he only said in response to a direct question put to him on the spot. When we are all dead and gone the only 'facts' that can be uncovered will come from documentary evidence of one sort or another, including everything left behind by people like Keith. So I took his point to be more that inferences can be prematurely, or wrongly drawn, from only having part of the picture to consider.

I can see how you got the impression that Keith's reference to the Battlecrease material was made in the context of wrong inferences sometimes being drawn from documentation. But in the context of all Keith's documentary evidence being available to a future court of history, which will give the jury as big a picture as Keith has himself, there is no risk of anyone concluding that the diary came out of Battlecrease if it didn't, because the same evidence that would have told Keith that it didn't would be in there with all the other material (if you see what I mean).



Uh, yeah. So this is the sort of stuff we are now being told about the alleged "Battlecrease evidence." This is the way it is now being discussed by at least one of those who claims to be "in the know."

It sure is looking less and less like Keith is going to be proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt concerning the diary's origins anytime soon, if ever.

And meanwhile, now the owner of the watch is trying to sell it.

And elsewhere Caroline actually has the temerity to argue that by withholding his alleged evidence Keith is doing the "diary critics" a favor! I suppose the same would go for IKJ and Steve Powell too, since neither of them have backed up their public claims about the diary's origins with any real evidence either.

This game just keeps getting stranger.

And still all the evidence we've seen points without exception to the diary being a cheap modern hoax written after the police list it cites three specific times is made available to the public and after the Poste House becomes the Poste House and all the rest.

Still, I wonder who is right about what Keith said (or meant), Paul or Caroline?

Either way, at this point, it all seems to be moving towards a predictable anti-climax.

Enjoying the warm summer days,

--John

[Graham]

As Omlor's been banned from the Forums I guess he needs somewhere to continue his interminable, tiresome blatherings, but let me ask anyone who still maintains the slightest interest in the frigging Diary and who happens by some chance to read this:

DOES ANYONE SUBSCRIBING TO THESE THREADS SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES MAYBRICK?

Anyone?

Graham

[Omlor]

Graham,

Despite your provocative adjectives, I'll be civil.

The answer to your question is no.

But two days ago, without my having said anything to him anywhere, Paul Begg specifically named me and asked why I was going around saying that Keith Skinner claimed to have secret squirel evidence that would prove in a court of law that the diary could only have come from the real James Maybrick's old house.

I have now provided the written record and the arguments and the citations to demonstrate that I was saying this because that's exactly what was reported here by Caroline Morris among others (she went so far as to say this secret evidence would let all potential modern forgers "off the hook").

Now I see that the discussion of what Keith meant is deteriorating into a morass of clouded speculation and contradictory memories and it is beginning to appear that the so called secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence isn't likely to show up and prove anything at all about the diary's origins anytime soon.

Of course, many people suspected that this would all end in yet another classic Diary World two-step, an anti-climax of typical proportions, in line with other claims about the diary's origins, like those of IKJ and Steve Powell.

So all I have done here has been to address, once my name was mentioned, why I had earlier written what I had (it was based on sound and now accurately reproduced reports) and then chronicle what seems to be happening to the myth of the Battlecrease evidence these days.

All the available evidence still tells us these artifacts are worthless modern hoaxes.

There is still nothing new, then, and still nothing real except for the revisionist history now taking place elsewhere that for some reason began on a forum I have nothing to do with and yet had my name attached to it.

We'll have to wait to see who is right, Caroline or Paul. But in the end I suspect the long term result can already be predicted based on the passing of so very many years.

All the best,

--John

[Victoria]

As Omlor's been banned from the Forums I guess he needs somewhere to continue his interminable, tiresome blatherings, but let me ask anyone who still maintains the slightest interest in the frigging Diary and who happens by some chance to read this:

DOES ANYONE SUBSCRIBING TO THESE THREADS SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN BY JAMES MAYBRICK?

Anyone?

Graham

Certainly not I Graham, and I'm sure that goes for virtually everyone.
Steve has just posted a picture of 'the house' where it really was written.

As for John Omlor .. his style is far from tiresome, it is my type of humour
makes this place a bit interesting.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously" ..... Oscar Wilde

cheers,
Victoria

[Omlor]

Hi Victoria,

Well, the fun never stops.

Here's Paul Begg again today doing the inevitable Diary World "let's all just wait until time reveals all" waltz. It's a dance as old as Paul Feldman's original book of nonsense and apparently it's still as popular as ever among those like Keith who claim to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the diary came from but who refuse to put up the goods.

Paul writes,

Again, nobody really expects their words to be wrung of every nuance of meaning or, in some cases, to be twisted into meanings they never intended, so who knows what Keith really meant? Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate. Or we can wait until all is revealed. Since the diary is not and cannot be considered as having a bearing on the historical events, I'm happy to wait until time, er (I never thought I'd say this) reveals all.


By the way, apparently the simple logical proposition "Fortunately, he's around to ask, so we don't really have to speculate." does not hold true in weird and wonderful Diary World. Here, although Keith is indeed "around to ask," we are still left to speculate. After all, that's what they've been doing this whole past week over there, ever since Paul asked about me.

And so we are urged to wait.

Once again.

Just like all those other times, regarding everything from testing the things properly using the latest technologies to the always deferred production of the "old hoax" theory to the outcome of the so-called "ongoing investigation" (wherein the word "ongoing" is obviously being used as it is in the phrase "the ongoing conflict in the Middle East" -- to mean "interminable").

But at least we have this to keep us comfortable while we wait:

"...so who knows what Keith really meant?"

Amazing,

--John