|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 4, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The Maybrick Diary-2000 Archives:
Archive through April 4, 2000
Author: Mark Goeder
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 04:10 am |        | michael,
I didnt really expect anyone to respond to my statements.
Although i must admit I am not suprised by your response.
I dont believe you have no time to go into the issue or you wouldnt have answered anyway.
Whatever story you follow, you only follow because you must have a given amount of facts.
If you look closer, you ll find any theory will have it holes.no matter who the suspect is.
If i ask you how many victims there were, what would you answer? .....5?
Most people will say 5.
do you also include Liz Stride as a victim?
If so, why?
Where is your evidence?
What about the others?
where is the SOUND evidence?
the thing is, there is none.
Everyone who reads ripperatur will have the same base to their story, and they will all have the same suspects and all the same victims.
why?
because they all read the same books as I do.
What I m trying to say, is that its getting more boring as time goes by.
All it amounts to are even more stories being made up.
Some of the theories I have been looking up are so ridiculous, I dont think think they even believe it themselves.
Ask yourself 1 question.
Do you know more than was already known 100 years ago?
I dont think you do.
you proved my point by responding the way you did to my comments.
I wasnt trying to attack anyone or the way anyone thinks.
But you felt as if i was.
Thats why you bothered.
You see,YOU have to prove that the diary is a fake, and you cant.
I think you are all making the mistake of listening too much to this Mr barret.
do you realy take him for real?
why dont you just focus your attention on the diary and look at the facts and at least some of the evidence.
Now compare what you have to anything you have seen in the past.
its just basic maths michael.
I am not twisting anything to say the diary is true.
You are twisting facts to prove its a fake.
I think thats the reason all the ripper work is coming to a stand still.
And this is the way things will stay untill you "catch" the right person.
That will never happen.
All the evidence ever found has been used up.
Now all this evidence is being stretched,torn, and bent.
The sooner you all admit that Maybricks story can only be true based on the SOUND EVIDENCE, the further you get to finding the truth.
There is enough material in the diary to last the next 100 years.
We are all stuck in a groove here.
Its a bit like an old scratched record.
Move on michael.
blow away the cobwebs
Mark |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 07:21 am | | Good commrents, Michael. Although I don't have too much time at the moment to comment on things, being just about to go to Ireland on some missing heir cases, it is strange that as well as the revival of interest in the Great Conspiracy theory, there's also someone who apparently believes in poor old Jim Maybrick as Jack. Such is life.
Peter |
Author: Mark Goeder
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 07:31 am | | hi again,
This is too unreal to be true.
It seems strange that every time a message is posted(pro-diary of course) someone answers with
"well I have no time at the moment"
Strange stuff.
Prove your point.
Prove the Diary is not true
If I didnt have anything to back my comments, I suppose I would have "no time" either
If you dont agree with "poor old Jim", then supply the world with something better.
but you need evidence......
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 10:10 am | | Hi All,
My posts have not been ‘pro-diary’, but in response to Peter Birchwood’s comments about the people alive today involved in the diary story. I am sure Peter really does not have the time to respond again just yet, and I appreciate that he got back to me as quickly as he did. Although I know he is not just scampering off to The Emerald Isle to distance himself from the remarks made in his post of 26th March, some of them really will need clarifying at some point.
I am naturally very glad to see Peter’s confirmation that Keith Skinner was not his ‘someone’ who was about to lose a welcome income if a satisfactory provenance couldn’t be found for the diary. But what would others have been left thinking if I had not asked for an explanation? The implication would have been left dangling. The fact remains that Peter was pointing the finger at someone, so who? Not Anne or Mike, as I have already shown. Not Feldy or Shirley, as Peter’s final paragraph suggests. Not Keith, as Peter now assures us. So who DID he mean? Surely this kind of vague accusatory statement needs to be backed up with names and evidence if we are expected to accept Peter’s reasoning here.
And this takes me straight back to Keith’s letter to Anne. If Peter is going to make a selective quote from it to make a point, surely it’s in the interests of truth to enable us to see the whole thing? If Keith has nothing to hide, why is Peter holding back? What’s the big deal?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 12:39 pm | | Mark
As with any artifact from the past, work of art, document, even ancient scrolls. It is entirely the responsibilty of the proponants of such an artifact to prove its authenticity.
Regardless what document is ever found, regardless of the contents of the document, everything written must be proven to be true or authentic before it is accepted.
We simply cannot accept blindly the written word in anything with suspicious provenance, without proof.
The world sits back and waits for the proof to materialize on the Diary. Shirley Harrison & co. spent plenty on trying to come up with the proof, she failed, then turned it around to imply that 'no-one proved it a fake'.
The onus is STILL on the proponants, and the world STILL waits.....
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 12:48 pm | | AN APOLOGY:
I have been searching for a different board for the following comments, but I've lost a great deal of my old e-mail lately and can't exactly recover the train of events. However -
It has been brought to my attention that in a post of a few months ago I made the statement "The Diary should have shown us that 'experts' are the real whores - willing to say anything for a price." (I don't believe that's the exact quote, but it is as near as dammit). I was asked privately if I was impugning the reputation and bona-fides of those people researching both pro- and anti-Diary.
The answer is no. When I wrote the above admittedly intemperate comments, I was thinking of such nonsense as "recovered memory syndrome" and the ever-increasing number of "syndromes" (urban stress syndrome, sex addiction, television addiction, &c.) that promulgate in America and are too often offered up as excuses for people not taking responsibility for their own actions. The recent suits against American tobacco companies provide a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Too often I have seen psychiatrists, psychologists, medical men and all sort of legitimate and self-proclaimed "experts" ready to argue any side of a defense or prosecution case, even when common sense whould tell the man on the Clapham omnibus that the position is idiotic. It is in this context I unleashed my screed against the Diary.
It has been my often-repeated conviction that the Diary is the worst thing to come along in Ripperography since Stephen Knight. It has divided what should be a community of respectful scholars, has led to hateful rhetoric (vide my own), and, in short, will probably never be regarded as absolutely true without a photograph of Maybrick committing the murders. I don't believe in it (and no, Mark, it is not because I don't want the mystery solved; I assure you the identity of JTR interests me not at all), I hate what it has done to this endeavour. It was a combination of my dislike of self-proclaimed "experts" who can be found for any side of a question and my visceral distaste for the Diary that led to my comments above.
In short, I do not believe that Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, Melvin Harris, Paul Feldman, Paul Begg or any genuine researcher who has taken a position pro- or anti-Diary is mendacious or taking their position because of payoffs or a hope for future money. I believe most everyone (professional and amateur) in the field of Ripper studies is basically decent and honourable, and sincerely apologise for any distress my comments have caused.
And a final broadside (to negate all that went before!) - Mark, I too have been reading Ripperature for over 15 years. I have also been reading the original source documents as well, letting them bring me to a conclusion rather than what some author says. Too many of the faults and mistakes in Ripper research have been because some people prefer to let an author tell them what to believe rather than think things for themselves.
And yes, I knew Maybrick's name long before the Diary came out. Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with true crime did, as well.
There has been a great deal (sometimes too much)written here promoting and disputing the Diary. Rather than chide people for not answering you, I would suggest you read what Melvin Harris has posted here on the subject, and then return. If you still believe in the Diary, then you will at least have had a sound grounding in the arguments against it, rather than a nebulous accusation that we don't want the case solved because we would miss the mystery or because a huge financial enterprise would collapse.
If Knight couldn't kill Ripper studies (and he almost did), Maybrick won't either.
Apologies for treading on your patience with this long post.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Mark Goeder
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 02:49 pm | | Hi Christopher- michael
My god am i sorry that i seemed to upset some people.
I should apologize, and I do.
Well, for a moment there I felt as if i was back at school again.
I even had to look up the word " CHAD" again.
I couldnt find it though.So I dont know what it means.
To be honest though,I was hoping for a helpful answer.
I am realy glad that you took a few mins to help me.I mean it.
I am also sorry for barging in on your discussion.
sorry all and I hope you accept my apologies.
BUT!!
Im not finnished yet.
What you are saying is that we are all loking for something we will never find.
I will have to ask you this:
What will it take for you guys to say " ok, now the case has been solved" ?
How much evidence do you need to prove beyond a doubt that the true Jack the Ripper has been found?
It just cant be done.
There is nothing that could convince you all of his true identity.
No matter how hard and how deep you look I believe there no evidence left on this planet to call the murders a shut case
I think that is what i wanted to hear.
I just cocked it all up in the way I asked before.
I was hoping for a honest answer.
And all of this brings me to my magic question:
If you can honestly admit that there will never be a true answer to who jack the Ripper realy was, why bother in the first place looking.
If its true what you said about not realy being interested about the rippers identity, what are your intentions then.
1) The only answer as to who?
or
2) The next best answer as to who?
or
3) The most logic answer as to who?
If you rule out Nr.1, then you are looking for someone who could have done it.
But what does it change?
Nothing
Nr. 3 is where I jump in.
I think that Mabrick was involved because it makes sense.(forgrt barret for a min).
He had the time
He would have had no alibi(but he was never asked)
He was there at the time(weekends)
He wrote it down
He had a motiv
He was mad
He knew more than anyone else at that time.
He was using drugs
If someone was to try to forge a Diary as such, why devote most of the writing at his wife?
The murders dont play that much of a role in his book. it does to us because we are all wrapped up in the story.
But then, 100 years ago in Liverpool anyone reading the diary ( if is was read ) would see the story froma different angle.
The words are not from a drug addict or anything like that.
This poor guy was Jealous.
Not just Jealous as we know it.
These words are from suffering like hell from his Jealousy.
He knew or he though he knew that his wife was having an affair.
This was killing him.
This where he started using his fantasy. He was fascinated by the thought of it all.
He watched all this happen.He watched it all unfold in front of his eyes.
You couldnt even start to believe what must of been going on through his head.
It can kill you.
I am afraid it also nearly killed me.
Thats why I am convinced that the writings are based on a true story.
People suffering from this kind of disease are capable of dreaming up there own fantasies and start believing things and living in there own world abstract world.
I suffer too from this illness Im afraid i have to admit.Although I stopped when it came to killing people.
But his words are true.
Gonna stop now
just thought I would tell you all that
:o( Mark |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 09:42 pm | | Mark -
There are Ripper theories that I think hold more water than others, but I carry no brief for any particular suspect. My interest in the case is how a series of ghastly, though otherwise ordinary murders became a larger-than-life story that resonates and attracts to our own day. If it were solved beyond doubt, my interest and fascination would be lessened not one iota.
The case, I think, will never be solved to absolute satisfaction. There used to be a strain which went "ah, somewhere in an attic room is a file or a piece of paper or something that will give us the name of the Ripper and we can all go home." Well, the Diary came out.
And here we are.
In any event, I believe your list above is flawed:
1. It makes sense: sense that a prosperous Liverpool businessman would travel to London to slaughter 5 otherwise nebulous prostitutes? More sense than Michael Kidney killing Stride or Joe Barrett killing Kelly? I don't think so.
2. He would have had the time: so would Kidney, Barrett, Bury, Pizer, Chapman, et al. In fact, some of them would have had more time, as they would not have had to travel from Liverpool to London.
3. He had no alibi: neither do a lot of proposed suspects.
4. He was there at the time: so were the above suspects.
5. He wrote it down: not proven. Irrelevant.
6. He had a motive: so would Kidney, Barrett, Druitt, Tumblety, et al.
7. He was mad: angry or insane? Does anger immediately lead to murder? Does insanity immediately lead to murder? Define your terms.
8. He knew more than anyone else at the time: knew more what? If he were the murderer, certainly then. He has not been sufficiently identified as the murderer. Irrelevant and not proven.
9. He was using drugs: is that prima facie evidence he was a murderer? I doubt it.
I have debated this with Paul Begg and others. I know Mr Begg does not entirely agree with my point, and neither may you, but here it is again: I am a writer. I see absolutely NOTHING in the Diary I could not have written with a good Ripper background and knowledge of criminal pathology. It is a novel - a turgid and overwritten one, one that has convinced a great many people it could only have been written by a man in the grip of a murderous psychosis - but a novel.
And that is all. I am not as au fait with all the relevant arguments for / against the Diary as better posters on these boards, and so I leave the argument to them. I humbly suggest, Mark, in this case you are letting your own experiences and prejudices convince you rather than a dispassionate examination of the evidence.
CMD |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 05:37 am | | Hi All,
CMD, thanks so much for your input here, always nice to have others post on this board. I don't feel quite so goddamn lonely then. :-)
I know some are reluctant to show their faces here because it's not cool to talk 'diary'.
Michael B. Bruneio, in his post of Saturday, April 1 @ 12:39 pm writes:
"Any further inquiry [into the diary] can and - as evidenced by some of the participants of these boards - does amount to a colossal waste of time."
I agree entirely, anyone not remotely interested in working out who dreamed the whole thing up, and when, would be rather foolish to waste their precious time reading this particular board or participating in the discussion.
I know that many feel this board to be irrelevant to the study of JtR, and they would prefer to see it excluded from the Casebook, but that is for the organisers to decide, not me. While the board exists, I reserve the right to 'waste' as much of my time as I choose in responding to other posters. Just as others reserve the right to ignore it all.
CMD, you have hit upon something I've been trying to find out for a long time. Out of the small group of possible modern-day forgers, I am still interested in finding some evidence, however slight, that one of 'em possessed the "good Ripper background and knowledge of criminal pathology", which you admit the diary author would have needed.
I totally agree that Mark, and everyone else who enters a discussion on this controversial topic, would do themselves a favour by reading as much as possible, looking at all angles and opinions (not just the two polarised arguments of modern fake v. genuine article), and try to make some sense of this very complex human puzzle.
Not for the faint-hearted, or for those wanting to score brownie points, precious few to be had at these murky depths of the boards. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 07:43 am | | Caroline , I don't have any more evidence on the Diary than what is generally known about it , I only have some theories and a gut feeling that the thing is fake. Lets take for instance the watch. It turns up in 1993 , 105 years after the Ripper murders were committed. Now , where has that watch been for all those years ? Surely someone would have looked at it and found those scratches , someone would know something about it since it supposedly has been in the public domain for that long. But no , we have no history for the watch. No one has admitted to owning it previously. Thus I think it was forged by ' the forgers ' ( see below ) and passed into the public domain for someone to find , or given to Albert Johnson who acted as a stooge to help prove the Diary's provenance. I personally believe Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison are totally innocent in this affair , guilt lies with Anne and Mike Barratt if anyone. However I have two theories about who did forge the Diary. Firstly , Anne and Mike Barratt had it forged although Mike did not do it himself personally : it was forged by a third party with Barratt's assistance. Since Mike keeps saying he forged the damn thing , why should we not believe him ? The ' I gave it to Deveraux to help Mike ' story seems obvious as a cover to help the faltering provenance of the work. Secondly , I think the Diary was forged in the 1930s by someone with knowledge of or access to the police files. This was probably done ' for a laugh ' or as something to later be sold as the genuine article for a fortune and fame. My guess is the person who did it was probably killed in WW2 and the Diary passed down to relatives who didn't believe in its provenance either. I can imagine Tony Deveraux buying it off a bloke in the pub and then passing it on to Mike to see if he could work out if it was authentic. The rest is history. The watch was then obtained from the same source or forged at Anne's request to provide independent evidence for the provenance. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 09:08 am | | | I'm more inclined to view the watch as an act of bandwagon-jumping. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 02:50 pm | | A clarification:
In my above post referring to "Joe Barrett" (three times, no less!) I meant, of course, Joseph BARNETT, lover of Mary Jane Kelly.
Freudian slip, you know. |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 03:32 pm | | Hi cm and caz,
I hope Im not getting on your nerves but I ve just read your response to my queries.
I couldnt help but notice you gave any easy answer to all of them.
All you really said was " so were the others".
as much as the diary cant be proved real, it still cant be proved a fake.
I spent all night reading again ( also that from Melvin H.
I have had many responses since I first decided to write here.
They all deny the diary as something at least half real.
NO ONE YET has even tried to explain to me as to why you all think it is a fake.
I would like you all to try to think about something I feel most of you are forgetting
(Oh please forgive my bad English by the way).
I ll try to explain what Im on about.
I think it is irrelevant that there are suspects who shared the same stories as you tried to show me yesterday.
But one thing will get you the closest.
And that is to know who you are looking for.
Are you looking for a killer?
Are you looking for a madman?
Are you looking for somone who is sexually insane?
Are you looking for a psychopath?
or what?
One thing stands out for our killer.
He wasnt only a psychopath.
Psychopath is a word which is hard to define.
Was Sutcliff a psychopath or a kiler?
Was kürtens sexually insane or was he a murderer?
Was Dahmer a Psychopath or mad?
What about the russian ( forgot his name again).
What do they all have in common?
They all lead to kill.
Their instinct lead them to it.
Im not talking about shootings or stabbings out of hatered or greed.
Some of these killers did indeed cut up their victims.
Imagine it?
Cut up a person with you own hands?
I cant gut a fish without feeling sick
What kind of person can do that?
What makes them tick?
I dont think they can help it.
Thats the way they were born.
They become(if I may steal the phrase) natural born killers.
There were( and still are) many of these killers.
And they are still roaming the streets.
Why is it so hard to detect them?
Psychopaths always seem to get caught after killing many people.
JTR belongs to a furthere breed of psychopaths.
What kind of Person kills people, cuts thm up, disembowells, and takes some of it with him.
and does all this " AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME"!!?
At the scene of the crime?
With all the police running about?
Taking all the time in the world?
A N D walking away without being noticed?
Half of Britain is looking for the Ripper in whitechapel and he casualy walks away in the middle of the night with a kidney in his pocket?
I would have loved to hear his explanation if he would have been caught.
This to me can only mean one thing.
There must be a phrase beyond the word "psychopath" to explain someone who would take that kind of risk KNOWING that he could be caught at any minute.
Now I ask you.
Druitt?
Kidney?
Gull?
Clarence?
Ostrog?
etc
etc
etc
A first I thought that Maybrick had Help.
I thought the person helping him a Woman.
I couldnt even tell you who It could have been.
The more I think about it , the more I become unsure again.
Whoever wrote the diary was talking first hand.
By the way, how much weight does the spicer story carry in your own opinion?
I mean ( even if you do think it was a coincidence), this guy who was arrested did match the report given by constable spicer.
im not clutching at straws here, Im only trying to prove my point.
So instead of youall telling me the diary is a fake( without giving me a SOLID reason), try giving me a alternative.
instead of "digging" in to what you do know, try digging in to what you dont know.
gonna watch some tv now......bye
Mark
ps: Ireally want to know how you can be so sure that the book is a fake. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 04:13 pm | | Hi Mark:
I can see you are utterly convinced that the Diary is the real thing. I will tell you why I thought that the Diary could not be genuine when I first heard about it: IT IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. I come from Liverpool and had known about the Maybrick Case previously and it just seemed to stretch the realms of credibility that James Maybrick, himself allegedly murdered by his wife in Aigburth, Liverpool, in May 1889, could have been Jack the Ripper in the streets of the East End of London in August to November 1888. The more I have read about the "problems" of the Diary, which as you will have gathered are many--no provenance, handwriting does not match Maybrick's, ink does not date to 1888, scrapbook used with pages missing instead of a journal or diary, and mistakes made about the murders that appear in modern books--the more I am convinced that it is a fraudulent document and a fake. I think you are convinced because the story rings true to you and you can identify with the sick and tormented person portrayed in the narrative of the Diary. However, as my friend Christopher-Michael DiGrazia has pointed out to you, that story bears more resemblance to the plot of a novel than to the reality of 1888. It is unfortunate that you cannot look at the document dispassionately and see that the weight of evidence is against it being what it purports to be.
Chris George |
Author: Mark Goeder
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 06:11 pm | | Hello Christopher,
I just wanted to ask you a few questions about your comments.
Firstly, if you are going to write (confess) in a diary, why shouldnt he have used a scrapbook or better still the inside of a cookbook?
Would you write in "DIARY" , better still , one which had the words D I A R Y written on the front page?. Or would you half try to disguise the book as something of little interest?.
Also, there are a few things which bother me about the diary.
Commenting on the Kelly murder he writes "no heart, no heart"
Kellys heart or was he talking about himself?
I dont think that the clothes were burnt Because "of the light i did yearn"
Who needs light when you are tearing some poor woman to shreds.
But you see christopher, this is only my opinion.
I dont identify with him either. I think you missed my point.I am trying to state that the way the book was written was really from someone suffering like hell
That is hard to forge.
I ve heard the thing about the ink too.
Like everything else, it just cant be proved.
The same goes for the paper and spelling.
If Sutcliff wrote his story in a diary, how many mistakes do you think he would make. how many holes would you find? Dont forget, sick people with sick minds write there lives different than we "normal" people would do.
Where did the "M" come from in kellys bed?
Why was there an "M" engraved in Eddowes face?
how did he know about the missing heart(if thats what he meant)
Or the rings?
No one has yet come up with a logical answer.
You used the word "novel"
Of course it sounds like a novel.
What do you expect is behind the whole story?
Whatever the true story is, I bet it TOO will sound like a novel,
Take the kürten story.if you are honest, you ll have to admit that the story sounds like a good old novel.
Or haw about... How we caught the Yorkshire ripper.I fact the sutcliff story would make a good holywood flick.Dont you think.
Reading through the web site, I must admit that the anti diary evidence is pretty think compared to the Facts we all should know by now.
The other problem is , I think most investigators want a Logocal simple explanation backed up by sound evidence.
Whatever the truth is, I m not sure if we could cope with it.
thanx for listening to me.
Mark
Ps: What about Spicers arrest?
another coincidence?
What about the liverpool Connection?
Yet another coincidence?
Who was Dr Merchant? |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 10:13 pm | | Notice how George refers to C-M as "my friend Christopher-Michael DiGrazia" above. That's the kind of thing nobody ever does around here when it comes to me. When they refer to me they always say "David Radka," never "my friend David Radka." Sometimes I say "my friend...," but nobody ever says it about me. Get what I mean? What do I have to do, paint you a picture?
It's like dating a woman for two years, and then finding out third-hand that she's been a lesbian all her life. It's like, why didn't she tell me?
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 04:23 am | | Hi David, my old buddy (how was that for you? :-)),
"...why didn't she tell me?"
It's how I imagine Mike Barrett may have reacted when Anne first claimed (or admitted?) in 1994 that the diary had come from her own family.
If this really did come as a bombshell to him, a secret his own wife had kept from him for at least three years, how does that fit with the idea that he and Anne sat down and forged the diary together at one time?
When Mike first confessed to the forgery in June 1994, Shirley Harrison (p285) quotes Anne's reaction as, "This is bullshit".
Was this also Mike's reaction to Anne's revelation the following month, or was he genuinely gobsmacked? It'd be interesting to know.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 05:50 am | | Hi Simon,
Thanks for your reply.
I share your gut feeling about the diary being a fake.
I don't really know what I think about the watch without more information. It is very strange how the scratches were apparently only noticed, examined closely and interpreted by owner Albert Johnson and pals so soon after the diary became hot news.
But if you think Johnson 'acted as a stooge', you surely have to ask what was in it for him? Why did he not simply sell the watch to the forgers, who could then have used it to far greater effect to help with the shaky provenance? What if Albert is perfectly innocent in all this and here you are publicly suggesting otherwise? A gut feeling is one thing when discussing long-dead suspects for JtR, but shouldn't we search for a tad more evidence when our suspicions involve people alive today?
"...guilt lies with Anne and Mike Barratt if anyone."
As far as I can see, Mike veers from doing it all himself, having Anne write the diary while suffering from MPD, to denying all knowledge apart from his original story of getting it from Devereux. We all have different gut feelings about which story (if any) comes remotely near the truth when Mike is doing the talking.
"...it was forged by a third party with Barratt's assistance."
Who could your third party be?
"The 'I gave it to Deveraux to help Mike ' story seems obvious as a cover to help the faltering provenance of the work."
As I said to Peter, it was the Devereux connection that no one could swallow, so why would Anne bash it out again as part of her own cover if she was inventing a better provenance?
"The watch was then obtained from the same source or forged at Anne's request to provide independent evidence for the provenance."
So we have another person dragged into the conspiracy by Anne? Whoever it was who complied with her 'request' must be a great friend, or else paid well for keeping quiet all this time.
Wonder how she found this marvel?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 08:43 am | | Hiya Caz ! It is very difficult to talk about the Diary when there are living people involved , and I would not want to accuse anyone of being a stooge or a forger if I could possibly help it ; however I hope the Barretts and Mr Johnston would understand that these are only my own opinions on the matter. Nevertheless , the fact that the Diary and the watch have no history before appearing in the 1990s must make us look at them as fakes. If somebody independent could come forward and say that they had seen the Diary before 1940 then that would be a major piece of evidence in confirming the authenticity of the book. But that is not for us to discover , it is for Paul Feldman , Melvyn Fairclough , Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison to prove ! I would suspect that Mr Johnston was given the watch and told ' Contact the publishers and say you bought it '. What would be in it for him ? A priceless artifact - JtR's watch ! The best possible legacy for his granddaughter Daisy ! I don't know who the third parties might be who had forged the watch and the Diary but I don't think Mike or Anne had the skill to forge it alone. Somebody who knew a bit about forging documents , perhaps a professor. Albert Johnston had worked as a security guard at a college. If it came off the possibility for wealth was enormous and since the provenance has not yet been proved completely false , the forger might still get his cut so he is keeping silent. This is all about wealth or fame which is why everyone is still flogging this dead horse I am afraid. Cynical , but probably true. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 04 April 2000 - 08:58 am | | It seems incredibly unlikely that Anne had not even mentioned the Diary to Mike before 1994 , let alone showed him it , despite being married to the man for almost 20 years. What about the Stephen Knight controversy in the 1970s when the Ripper case was in the news , or the Kosminski developments in the late 80s ? What about all the Ripper TV programmes and films that came out - Anne Barrett could hardly have avoided some exposure to the case. If she thought the book was so evil , why didn't she throw it away - otherwise why didn't she try and profit from it ? I imagine Mike would have been very interested in it if he had learnt of its existence. The early years of the 1980s were ones of bitter recession and gloom in Britain , surely the extra money from publishing the Diary might have helped ; it would have been more money to spoil their daughter Caroline with , the apple of Mike's eye. Its very difficult to prove the Diary is a fake , but I think its easy to see why so many people BELIEVE it is. |
|
|
|
|
