One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Joshua Rogan]

...JtR didn't write the GSG as it was too dark.

Hi John,
As far as I can work out, the moon would have been just over a third of full (waning crescent) and low in the Eastern sky at the time of the Double Event, ie directly behind the building where the grafitto was found, in a West facing doorway.
Surveyor Foster's report states that there was a lamp approximately 20' away from the writing. However, he doesn't mention it's location. Without that and of course the location of the writing itself, I don't think it's possible to know whether it was in deep shadow or not.

[Iconoclast]

The great news from the nascent thread on Barrett's transcript is that Barrett is finally and patently and conclusively out of the dock as hoax master, the 'Greatest forger the world has ever known'. I don't honestly think any of us with at least a couple of O-levels genuinely ever thought Barrett should ever have been in the frame, but the transcript from his interview in 1993 shows his beliefs in clear order, even if his thought process rarely was. This was not a man capable of writing a word of the Maybrick journal. He was a nice guy who clearly liked a drink and loved his family and when the latter was threatened he turned to the former and the former convinced him either that he truly did hoax the journal or that in claiming he hoaxed it his family (especially his daughter Caroline) could be protected.

So we have lost our master forger theory (thank goodness that's finally over with). And we have an actual document (the journal). The only hard evidence ever cited against a Ripper suspect. And we can link Maybrick to Whitechapel in London and we can recognise clear means, motive, and opportunity. His motive may not sit comfortably with us, but that's not for us to pronounce upon and evaluate. His motive is for him to define, and the journal does that very neatly.

So we have an actual journal, and we have an actual watch. Both Victorian in origin. The Maybrick signature in the watch is clearly Maybrick's, but the writing in the journal itself is unexpectedly not like Maybrick's formal, public copperplate. Unfortunately, we do not have any other examples of James Maybrick's handwriting when high on arsenic, and writing for his own eyes about the most ghastly of crimes. If we had even just some scrawl of Maybrick's which was clearly intended only for his own eyes, we would have a good control comparison, but we do not. We do not, so we cannot use the handwriting as a reason for determining the journal to not have been written by James Maybrick.

Maybrick rather naively wrote 'Poste House' when he met 'Post House' and - by the freak of all coincidences - a 'Poste House' is opened in the 1960s in the vacainity of where he worked. A coincidence, yes, but not evidence therefore of a hoax.

He used the bullet pont expression 'tin match box, empty' which was fundamnetally how it was written in the original list of Eddowes' possessions (a list first in formal print in 1987), and that is an extremely surprising thing to have happened. Not in itself evidence of a post-1987 hoax, but certainly indicative of it, it must be said.

And, of course, he gets the placing of Kelly's breasts wrong. If all he had done in Kelly's room was remove her breasts before placing them where he did, I'd be inclined to consider this a truly fundamental and indeed fatal error in a hoax, but of course we know it was a small part of the blood-red butchery which he conducted on Kelly's corpse.

And we have a series of events in the historical evidence (which I have articulated recently in this thread) which don't simply pull Maybrick towards the Ripper crimes but rather positively drag him towards them. Maybe not the newspaper article 'Who is Jim?' - we may have to let that one go, I guess. But a plethora of coincidences ranging from the incidental to the out-right impossible and outlandish, unless of course they are not coincidences at all. Maybrick wrote himself and his family very clearly into the version of the GSG which the Metropolitan Police entered into the formal record. He wrote letters to the Liverpool Echo, one of which he signed with a cryptic reference to his and Florence's names ('Diego Laurenz'). He wrote rhymes which introduced the name 'Jack the Ripper' into the story long before 'Dear Boss' opened for business - rhymes which spoke directly of James Maybrick ("...as time will tell, that I am society's pillar").

I could go on, but it is all there on the record in this, The Greatest Thread of All. T'other threads cannot compare. The answer to the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was lie in these digital pages, and they point inexorably to James Maybrick.

Iconoclast

[David Orsam]

The great news from the nascent thread on Barrett's transcript is that Barrett is finally and patently and conclusively out of the dock as hoax master

I'm afraid don't follow this. How does what Barrett said in the transcript eliminate him from being involved in, or the mastermind behind, the creation of a hoax diary? Are you relying on Barrett's denial that it was a forgery and assuming he was telling the truth?

Or is there something you have spotted that I missed?

[Iconoclast]

I'm afraid don't follow this. How does what Barrett said in the transcript eliminate him from being involved in, or the mastermind behind, the creation of a hoax diary? Are you relying on Barrett's denial that it was a forgery and assuming he was telling the truth?

Or is there something you have spotted that I missed?

It would certainly appear so!

Did you honestly read the words of the man himself and still remain convinced you were reading the mind of a master hoaxer?

I think we all need a little bit of what you're smoking ...

[David Orsam]

It would certainly appear so!

Did you honestly read the words of the man himself and still remain convinced you were reading the mind of a master hoaxer?

I think we all need a little bit of what you're smoking ...

But wouldn't a "master hoaxer" be sufficiently clever and cunning to speak without revealing himself to be one?

In fact, wouldn't a "master hoaxer" be able to give the false impression that he was not a master hoaxer?

In any case, he didn't claim in his 1995 affidavit to have created the diary on his own. Are you forgetting that?

[Iconoclast]

But wouldn't a "master hoaxer" be sufficiently clever and cunning to speak without revealing himself to be one?

In fact, wouldn't a "master hoaxer" be able to give the false impression that he was not a master hoaxer?

In any case, he didn't claim in his 1995 affidavit to have created the diary on his own. Are you forgetting that?

Not that one, no. And if you think there's any possibility of it, you're rather revealling a desperate hand as well as your busted flush.

If you are now saying that Anne Barrett wrote the Maybrick journal, then please provide us with your evidence. I don't think anyone is going to seriously accept Michael Barrett's drink-soaked confession that "it was the missus, guv" so I look forward to the concrete evidence you can provide that it was she - not he - who wrote this very clever piece of work.

[David Orsam]

Not that one, no. And if you think there's any possibility of it, you're rather revealling a desperate hand as well as your busted flush.

If you are now saying that Anne Barrett wrote the Maybrick journal, then please provide us with your evidence. I don't think anyone is going to seriously accept Michael Barrett's drink-soaked confession that "it was the missus, guv" so I look forward to the concrete evidence you can provide that it was she - not he - who wrote this very clever piece of work.

We're now moving dramatically away from the point. I thought you had seen something in the transcript which meant that we could eliminate Barrett from any role in the diary's creation. It's odd, if that's the case, that you can't seem to tell us what it is.

"Master hoaxer" was, of course, your own straw man description - and I've never seen anyone refer to Barrett as that - but what is there in the interview that tells you that Barrett couldn't, for example, have come up with the idea that his fellow Liverpudlian, James Maybrick, was Jack the Ripper and connected Whitechapel in Liverpool with Whitechapel in London? What is there in that interview that tells you that Barrett couldn't have had the idea of creating a forged diary by Maybrick on the basis that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?

You see I'm baffled as to what it is you believe you have spotted in that transcript which has led you to the conclusion that Barrett couldn't have been behind the hoax.

[Iconoclast]

We're now moving dramatically away from the point. I thought you had seen something in the transcript which meant that we could eliminate Barrett from any role in the diary's creation. It's odd, if that's the case, that you can't seem to tell us what it is.

"Master hoaxer" was, of course, your own straw man description - and I've never seen anyone refer to Barrett as that - but what is there in the interview that tells you that Barrett couldn't, for example, have come up with the idea that his fellow Liverpudlian, James Maybrick, was Jack the Ripper and connected Whitechapel in Liverpool with Whitechapel in London? What is there in that interview that tells you that Barrett couldn't have had the idea of creating a forged diary by Maybrick on the basis that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper?

You see I'm baffled as to what it is you believe you have spotted in that transcript which has led you to the conclusion that Barrett couldn't have been behind the hoax.

You'll need to remain baffled then, Lord Orsam. I thought you were a bit sharper-eyed and brighter than that, in all honesty. Slightly worried about you if you have read that transcript and can seriously put Barrett forward as the creator of the Maybrick journal.

It was Barrett himself who described himself along the lines of 'The greatest forger in history'. 'Master hoaxer' - similar gig, I'd say?

[Abby Normal]

It would certainly appear so!

Did you honestly read the words of the man himself and still remain convinced you were reading the mind of a master hoaxer?

I think we all need a little bit of what you're smoking ...

He’s only a master hoaxer because there are master hoaxees.

[Iconoclast]

He’s only a master hoaxer because there are master hoaxees.

I think you missed the inverted commas, Abby. Irony you see.

Ike

[David Orsam]

You'll need to remain baffled then, Lord Orsam. I thought you were a bit sharper-eyed and brighter than that, in all honesty.

Thanks, but I'm not a mind reader.

Slightly worried about you if you have read that transcript and can seriously put Barrett forward as the creator of the Maybrick journal.

What I'm asking you to do is to explain why I can't seriously put Barrett forward as the creator of the Maybrick journal if I want to. For all I know you've misunderstood or misread the transcript. I simply don't know how you have come to the conclusion you have. You seem to be refusing to explain it.

It was Barrett himself who described himself along the lines of 'The greatest forger in history'. 'Master hoaxer' - similar gig, I'd say?

But that was in the summer of 1994. He subsequently admitted that he wasn't the person who actually forged the diary (i.e. wrote it out by hand). So we are working to a different narrative. You need to keep up.

[DirectorDave]

You'll need to remain baffled then, Lord Orsam. I thought you were a bit sharper-eyed and brighter than that, in all honesty. Slightly worried about you if you have read that transcript and can seriously put Barrett forward as the creator of the Maybrick journal.

It was Barrett himself who described himself along the lines of 'The greatest forger in history'. 'Master hoaxer' - similar gig, I'd say?

"I must be honest with you because I just put the bloody diary and quote me on this because
that diary has killed me here, and you know I’ve had a stroke because it really has killed me. I put the diary to one side and I didn’t really truly believe it and you can quote me on that."



He had a stroke so your "Mike couldn't have wrote it" argument is blown out the water.

[Abby Normal]

I think you missed the inverted commas, Abby. Irony you see.

Ike

The irony is that you’ve been duped by your so called master forger, whom you call that sarcastically because you think there’s no way he could have forged it.

[Iconoclast]

"I must be honest with you because I just put the bloody diary and quote me on this because
that diary has killed me here, and you know I’ve had a stroke because it really has killed me. I put the diary to one side and I didn’t really truly believe it and you can quote me on that."



He had a stroke so your "Mike couldn't have wrote it" argument is blown out the water.

DirectorDave,

Could you clarify for the good readers of this thread when Mike Barrett had a stroke, please?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

The irony is that you’ve been duped by your so called master forger, whom you call that sarcastically because you think there’s no way he could have forged it.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. There’s no way he could have forged it.