Barrett and the Diary.

[Omlor]

Well, it seems I am the topic of discussion again elsewhere concerning Keith Skinnner's claim, first made in Liverpool and then repeated in a published e-mail to Caroline reposted above, that he has secret squirrel information that would prove the diary came from the real James Maybrick's old house.

This morning I read an amazing account of things from Paul Begg:

Now, the existance of this information appears to stem from John Omlor citing second- and third-hand something Keith had said in Liverpool...

Imagine that!

The "existance" of the information concerning the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence "stems from" me!

I did it!

How delightful. If only I had realized how much power I truly had around here!

Never mind Caroline Morris bringing up the consequences of "the Battlecrease evidence" over and over again in previous discussions and claiming that it lets all potential modern forgers "off the hook." Never mind Chris Jones claiming that many people at the goofy trial voted to convict James as the Ripper because Keith said he had evidence that would prove that the diary came from the real Jim's old house. Never mind Keith himself reaffirming to Caroline that he meant what he said.

Nope.

The information concerning the existence of the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence all stems from me.

Wow.

Well, if that's true then perhaps it falls to me to set the record straight. I've never seen any such evidence. I have no reason to believe it will convince anyone of anything. In fact, I've never seen any real evidence of any sort that even remotely proves that this ridiculous diary is anything except what the text tells us it is-- a cheap modern hoax.

Since I'm apparently responsible for the information about what Keith said in Liverpool, there is obviously no reason to take any of it seriously.

Unless, that is, Paul is simply wrong.

Either way, this is getting more and more bizarre and the status of any alleged evidence linking the diary to the real James Maybrick's house is becoming less and less a fixed or reliable idea.

Of course, Paul could always simply write to me and ask me where I heard all this silliness about Keith having secret squirrel evidence that he won't show anyone and whether or not he announced its existence in a public forum and yet refused even to explain precisely why it can't be seen.

But I suppose talking about it all and about me elsewhere on the net is more fun for him.

Fair enough.

Happy Mother's day everyone,

--John

[Ally]

I am going to agree that it is completely uncouth and cowardly for them to refuse to allow you to participate on their Maybrick boards while continually referencing your name. Especially since every time they do so, you of course, feel like you just have to comment over here, which is irritating to put it mildly.

They should either shut up about you, or let you in. One of the two, because the way they are doing it now is obnoxious.

[Victoria]

Part of quote,

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.

Amazing,

--John

John,

In all this, and I do realize that this is 'weird and wonderful diary world' ..
and not how logical people operate, is there any good, or real reason why ..
someone cannot just ask Keith now to clarify his statements and put
an end to all the speculations?
Seems simple enough to me.

If Caroline is reading this, she would be the logical choice.
We could use your statements of 'delusions of granduer' as enticement,
for her to respond.

quote,
"How delightful. If only I had realized how much power I truly had around here!"

and,
"The information concerning the existence of the secret squirrel Battlecrease evidence all stems from me.

Wow".

worth a try,
Victoria

[Omlor]

Hi Victoria,

Yes, it now seems clear that there is considerable room for doubt about what Keith has and what he believes and even what he meant, especially if one reads the latest posts on the subject elsewhere. You suggest that Keith be asked to clarify his statement. You suggest that he might just "put an end to all the speculations."

And you write:

"Seems simple enough to me."


Indeed. It does, doesn't it?

--John

[Victoria]

It does indeed John,

seem simple enough, though I suspect there is nothing much
to tell .. an exaggeration of someting of little consequence.

And in your words,

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

what a pity,

Victoria

[rjpalmer]

I think the last thing the Maybrick Diary needs is to be decided by 'the court of history.' The thing ought to be resolved while Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et. al., are still drawing breath. Half the problem with 'Ripper Studies' is that no one went around and quizzed Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and Littlechld circa 1912--ie., while they still had vocal chords.

[Gatsby]

I think that many of the diary supporters erroneously assume that the "critics" will never change their mind. I believe the diary is a hoax, but if some piece of verifiable evidence were to see the light of day, or if a detailed analysis of the original diary were completed that proved it's authenticity; I would change my mind.

You can't simply put something out there and expect everyone to believe it. Especially if there is considerable doubt created by the very article itself (see: Poste House).

Show me something that I can verify that explains that discrepancy, or allow the original diary to be scrutinized scientifically. If the people in possession of the diary believe so strongly that it is real, there is no reason why they shouldn't want to prove that. An innocent man fights to prove his innocence, he doesn't simply say "I didn't do it" and offer no further evidence... and he certainly doesn't say "I didn't do it," then "I did it," then "I didn't do it."

None of the critics have invented anything to discredit the diary, they have only pointed to problems (that have yet to be clarified by supporters) with passages within the diary, and monitored the ever changing stories that surround the "discovery" of the diary.

It is on the pro-diary camp to prove the diary is real, otherwise there is only one logical conclusion...

[Chris George]

I think the last thing the Maybrick Diary needs is to be decided by 'the court of history.' The thing ought to be resolved while Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et. al., are still drawing breath. Half the problem with 'Ripper Studies' is that no one went around and quizzed Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and Littlechld circa 1912--ie., while they still had vocal chords.

Hi Roger

This assumes that Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, really know something about the Diary and the scratches in the watch. Certain of the actions and statements of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham seem suspicious but couldn't it be that they themselves were merely trying to grapple with the meaning of a mysterious document? Anne's "in the family for years" claim could have been just to better explain the Diary's origins than the pub story did and to stop Feldman's pestering. And Albert Johnson might be innocently unaware of how the scratches came to be in the watch.

Similarly, the other part of your post assumes that the police officials involved in the Ripper case really did know some significant details as to who the killer was. Or were they just as much in the dark as anyone? That is, including even Sir Robert Anderson who as Littlechild wrote only claimed he knew the answer to the Ripper mystery.

Chris

[Omlor]

Hi Chris,

Look at it this way...

We only know of two people in the whole history of the world who had their hands on the diary before it went public -- Mike and Anne.

Both of them eventually told self-contradictory stories about how they got it. Consequently, we know that at some point they were lying about its origins.

If they were, as you suggest, "merely trying to grapple with the meaning of a mysterious document," then why the lies?

--John

[Chris George]

Hi Chris,

Look at it this way...

We only know of two people in the whole history of the world who had their hands on the diary before it went public -- Mike and Anne.

Both of them eventually told self-contradictory stories about how they got it. Consequently, we know that at some point they were lying about its origins.

If they were, as you suggest, "merely trying to grapple with the meaning of a mysterious document," then why the lies?

--John

Hi John

Let's put it this way, if a fishy document came into your hands, a kind of windfall, and you were not the fine upstanding Floridian we know you to be, might you not tell various stories about how you came to possess the document? So in other words, I don't think the lies or the contradictory stories per se necessarily denote that the Barretts were involved in hoaxing the Diary or that they necessarily know where it came from.

All the best

Chris

[Gatsby]

Hi John

Let's put it this way, if a fishy document came into your hands, a kind of windfall, and you were not the fine upstanding Floridian we know you to be, might you not tell various stories about how you came to possess the document? So in other words, I don't think the lies or the contradictory stories per se necessarily denote that the Barretts were involved in hoaxing the Diary or that they necessarily know where it came from.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,

I see your point (sort of), but I don't think I would tell people that I wrote it, which Barret has said.

[Chris George]

Hi Chris,

I see your point (sort of), but I don't think I would tell people that I wrote it, which Barret has said.

Hi Gatsby

If you are looking for attention, you might claim you wrote it.

Chris

[Omlor]

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure what you are suggesting about Mike and Anne not being "fine and upstanding," but if I got hold of an old diary, I would see no reason to lie about how I got it.

And I am suggesting that if they did see reasons to lie, that should tell us something both about them and about the possible origins of the book, especially given the fact that it has no verifiable provenance to speak of, there is no record of it having even existed before the 1980s, the text indicates numerous times that it was composed in modern times and the people that first produced it for inspection have never come clean about its origins.

But of course all of this is ancient news by now and nothing new has happened with the book or is likely to happen with the book for years and years and years.

I think that's what RJ was commenting on originally, when he talked about resolving this while the principal players are at least still around.

Instead, we get people making claims to have secret evidence that would convince us of the diary's origins but not showing it anyone and not even saying why they won't show it to anyone, we get promises of cooperation but no meaningful tests on the document (in fact, the book isn't even being shown to experts so that they might at least tell us what is and is not possible using the latest technologies), we get turf wars and secrecy and inaction and general paranoia and claims of an interminable "ongoing investigation" but nothing new or real ever.

So it's not surprising that one might find the talk of relegating the whole issue to the "court of history," while not surprising, certainly depressing.

Anyway, it's all the same old thing and the diary still sits where it sits, still a cheap hoax like the watch, and nothing ever really changes.

So at least there is a certain peace in the routine.

And I'm off to the links.

Have a fine afternoon and evening,

--John

[caz]

The thing ought to be resolved while Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et. al., are still drawing breath. Half the problem with 'Ripper Studies' is that no one went around and quizzed Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, and Littlechld circa 1912--ie., while they still had vocal chords.

Good God, RJ! I thought it was Keith posting for a moment there. His whole philosophy is the importance of talking to people while they are still alive, and getting as much as possible down on record for future generations to get their teeth into. It's just a pity it has taken so long for you to finally get the message. You never uttered a word when others, including Melvin Harris, were positively shying away from every opportunity they had to quiz people like 'Barrett, Graham, and Johnson, et al'.

What the blazes do you think Keith has been doing all along, if not trying to set down on record as much as possible of what those still alive have to say about the diary and watch? He is extremely critical of people who pontificate from their armchairs about people they don't know and have never met, and have no intention of ever confronting with their questions or their suspicions.

I really could not be more pleased that you, for one, are so actively endorsing Keith's own tried and tested methods for getting at the truth while there are people alive who know it and have evidence of it.

But to go back to your comments about Abberline, Anderson, Swanson and Littlechild not being quizzed: would you have expected the results of that quizzing to appear on a public message board while the ripper investigation was still in progress, or while there might be people around with relevant information, if such a public broadcasting might easily jeopardize a successful outcome?

That's what certain people around here seem to be calling for with regard to the investigation into the origins of the diary and watch, ie who created them, when, how and why, and how they emerged when they did.

I don't know what all the fuss is about, because Omlor would be beside himself with joy if he really thought that the wait for evidence to be made public (in a case involving people who are still alive) indicated that the evidence itself didn't exist or was nothing for him to worry his sweet head about.

By the way he goes on and on and on and on about it, anyone would think that he would equate the diary coming out of Maybrick's house with it being real.

It is on the pro-diary camp to prove the diary is real, otherwise there is only one logical conclusion...

Absolutely, Gatsby.

Now then, where's this pro-diary 'camp' who are busy claiming the diary is real? Come out, come out, wherever you are - someone wants a word with you.....

Meanwhile nobody can come up with any evidence for who is supposed to have completed the thing between April 1989 (for those gullible enough to believe Mike's version of events re his battered old Sphere book - even though he told Feldy's secretary how he was going to fool people into believing he had the book all along and therefore must have forged the diary) and April 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[Omlor]

I read Caroline's post above.

Then I scrolled up and re-read this:

Instead, we get people making claims to have secret evidence that would convince us of the diary's origins but not showing it anyone and not even saying why they won't show it to anyone, we get promises of cooperation but no meaningful tests on the document (in fact, the book isn't even being shown to experts so that they might at least tell us what is and is not possible using the latest technologies), we get turf wars and secrecy and inaction and general paranoia and claims of an interminable "ongoing investigation" but nothing new or real ever.

So it's not surprising that one might find the talk of relegating the whole issue to the "court of history," while not surprising, certainly depressing.

Anyway, it's all the same old thing and the diary still sits where it sits, still a cheap hoax like the watch, and nothing ever really changes.


Well, there's nothing like a good old-fashioned demonstration.

Same as it ever was,

--John