Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maybrick diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    so unfortunately your argument relies on putting Anne's cart before her horse, because the diary would have had to exist first.
    Oh dear. Not this again.

    There is no 'cart before the horse.'

    The physical diary did not exist in the beginning--the typescript was created first. Why is that so hard to grasp, isn't that how a hoax would naturally be created? In my view, Anne was simply lying. 'The story' that Anne refers to in her confession to Feldman is a half-truth about the original creation of the typescript. Barrett took this typescript and created the bogus document that we now laugh about. He did this in April 1992. There is no confusion about a horse and a cart unless one is daft enough to believe Anne Graham's story--which neither of us do.

    Meanwhile, he's another example of Barrett's journalistic efforts, this time from 30 April 1987, though--depending on whom you ask--we'll be told that Mike had nothing to do with it and it was actually a joint effort by Anne Graham, Rob Green, and an unnamed copy editor at Celebrity (according to Robert Smith's version) because as everyone knows, that's how magazines work--a drunk mails in a cassette and a few illegible notes, and the editor has a hack write it all up in a nice finished package, having nothing better to do with his or her time.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Celebrity April 1997.jpg Views:	0 Size:	93.8 KB ID:	597419

    Comment


    • From the other thread:

      Originally posted by Markus Aurelius Franzoi
      Why would Anne be party to a "hoax" pointing a finger at someone allegedly in her own family tree as being Jack the Ripper? And how did they do it? Did they come up with the candidate and then find out about the family lore?

      Hi Mark.

      But Anne didn't do any of that. You appear to be confusing Anne Graham with the theories of Paul Feldman.

      For the first two years of the diary's existence, Anne just went along with her then husband Mike Barrett--the diary came from Mike's friend Tony Devereux and that's all either of them knew. Full stop.

      Roughly two years later, early 1994, Barrett and Graham split up, and later that summer Barrett confessed to having hoaxed it.

      Graham denied this, and still said it came from Devereux and that is all she knew about it.

      Then a mysterious meeting took place between Anne Graham and the researcher/film producer Paul Feldman at a hotel bar in Liverpool. The Moat House.

      After that meeting, Anne started claiming that Barrett couldn't have hoaxed the diary because she had seen the diary as a teenager--her father had inherited it in the 1940s or thereabouts.

      It was Paul Feldman who theorized that Anne and Billy Graham were both secret Maybricks (at other times, Feldman also thought Barrett and the Johnsons were Maybricks).

      Anne herself never made that claim and even voiced some skepticism about Feldman's theories.

      And I don't think anyone other than Paul Feldman ever believed his wild genealogical speculations, anyway, did they? I don't see where they have any bearing whatsoever on whether the diary is or isn't a modern hoax.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

        And I don't think anyone other than Paul Feldman ever believed his wild genealogical speculations, anyway, did they? I don't see where they have any bearing whatsoever on whether the diary is or isn't a modern hoax.
        Some of his 'wild' theories were not so wild in the end. Even you had to concede he was right about Christiana Robertson being Sarah Robertson's mother and not her aunt. He also made the connection with the Edges family, who we now know hailed from St George in the East, with the Peterborough Maybricks.

        You may find all of this trivial and insignificant, but in my own quest to prove that Maybrick was JtR, it is far from either.

        Your trite summary of Mike and Anne's relationship suits the narrative you are trying to convey to the general public, but it was far more complicated than your summary allows.

        Still, no Barrett or Graham has demonstrated convincingly how they "forged" the diary or how they actually came to gain possession of it. For that Mike and Anne are both guilty.
        Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
        JayHartley.com

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jay Hartley View Post


          Your trite summary of Mike and Anne's relationship suits the narrative you are trying to convey to the general public, but it was far more complicated than your summary allows.
          What is this silly posturing even suppose to mean?

          There is nothing ‘trite’ about it. It is a concise description of what happened, showing that any claims about Anne being related to the Maybricks is irrelevant to the diary being or not being a modern hoax. She never made that claim.

          Are you now telling me that Eddie Lyons found the diary under Dodd’s floorboards during an electrical project and within 24 hours just happened to sell it to the husband of a secret Maybrick?

          How does that work?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

            What is this silly posturing even suppose to mean?

            There is nothing ‘trite’ about it. It is a concise description of what happened, showing that any claims about Anne being related to the Maybricks is irrelevant to the diary being or not being a modern hoax. She never made that claim.

            Are you now telling me that Eddie Lyons found the diary under Dodd’s floorboards during an electrical project and within 24 hours just happened to sell it to the husband of a secret Maybrick?

            How does that work?
            There is no posturing here just someone focused on trying to establish facts and the truth.

            You know full well I never believed Anne’s story RJ. I absolutely believed she was capable of deception. You and I merely disagree on what that deception by Anne looked like.

            Their marriage was complicated and difficult. Mike never behaved rationally and Anne knew how to push Mike’s buttons. Yet somehow this document found its way to them.

            An electrician who was at Battlecrease House on 9th March 1992, who also drunk in the same pub as Mike and Tony Devereux, is that link as you know.

            Eddie Lyons may one day tell the truth of what happened that day - when Mike also phoned Doreen Montgomery claiming he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. Just pure coincidence apparently.
            Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
            JayHartley.com

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jay Hartley View Post

              Some of his 'wild' theories were not so wild in the end. Even you had to concede he was right about Christiana Robertson being Sarah Robertson's mother and not her aunt. He also made the connection with the Edges family, who we now know hailed from St George in the East, with the Peterborough Maybricks.

              You may find all of this trivial and insignificant, but in my own quest to prove that Maybrick was JtR, it is far from either.
              This is a different issue from what Markus was asking about, though.

              You could, of course, reject the floorboards theory championed by Caz, and revert back to Anne having inherited the diary from her family. You could then test Feldman’s theories through a DNA test, as Markus suggested.

              But if they came back negative, you’d still be in the dark and it wouldn’t tell you if Anne had lied, since it was Paul Feldman’s claim and not hers. She merely said she had inherited it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                This is a different issue from what Markus was asking about, though.

                You could, of course, reject the floorboards theory championed by Caz, and revert back to Anne having inherited the diary from her family. You could then test Feldman’s theories through a DNA test, as Markus suggested.

                But if they came back negative, you’d still be in the dark and it wouldn’t tell you if Anne had lied, since it was Paul Feldman’s claim and not hers. She merely said she had inherited it.
                I see the point you are making RJ.

                I will follow where I believe the truth is. The floorboards, to me, remain the best theory. - hence why I stay with it.

                However, Markus may wish to investigate along the DNA lines to Feldman's claims of a link between Florence Chandler and Anne Graham.

                As far as I can tell, nobody could find a viable genealogical connection.

                By the way, Feldman's book says Anne came up with the story of the family provenance. I was initially suspicious of potential collusion, but as time has progressed and I have consumed more information, I see the deception as being all Anne's.
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment

                Working...
                X