Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[John Wheat]

Would it be too much to say, indeed, that they are actually the trolls and wind-up merchants here on the Maybrick arm of the Casebook?

Yes it would.

[John Wheat]

Of course it's beyond the realms of possiblity that Mike Barrett a published writer could have anything to do with forging the diary.

[Graham]

Have you ever read anything that this distinguished 'published writer' ever wrote....?

Graham

[John Wheat]

Have you ever read anything that this distinguished 'published writer' ever wrote....?

Graham

No but it doesn't change the fact he was a published writer. Nor does it make it impossible for him to have been involved in the forgery of the diary.

[Mike J. G.]

Let's see... The diary can't be connected to either Maybrick brother in any sensible, concrete way, the evidence we do have rules both men out, unless they were both supremely talented when it came to putting pen to paper in at least two completely different ways not typically seen in people until proven otherwise. However, The diary can and has been connected to the Barretts, with enough circumstantial evidence and unavoidable coincidence to suggest a red flag to anyone with at least half an ounce of common sense.

But yeah. That's not exciting enough, so let's bring in a complete unknown, a wildcard, for whom there is less evidence supporting them than there is for Jimmy Two-Hands... Cos that's how science and investigation works, innit. Take the most likely solution and toss it aside, opting to go for a complete unknown, I mean, that's how the police work, innit, said nobody ever.

And this is what passes for logical thinking these days, apparently; "I can't figure out how simple people built the pyramids, so it must've been aliens!"

If we really get down to it, people simply don't want to believe it was written by the Barretts, that's about the shape of it, isn't it?

If you've got any shred of common sense, the simple fact of there being a truly dodgy provenance, and the fact that Mike was seeking out a Victorian-era diary, should be enough to warrant a warning sign in your noggin, but a lot of people don't have anything in their noggin to begin with.

I've seen nothing within that so-called diary to make me think it was written by anyone superior in any literary sense, nor have I seen anything factual, nor have I seen anything that made me change my mind about it being a hokey Dan Brown-style piece of fiction parading as fact.

People are fooled by hoaxes time and time again, simply because they enjoy clinging onto "mystery" and refuse to use logic to draw an actual sensible conclusion. Like Mike and Anne Barrett, Roger Patterson was deemed too simple a cowboy to have ever "fooled" the world with his Bigfoot stunt, but the fact of the matter is, the world wasn't fooled, a bunch of gullible maroons were, but not the world, hence why the verdict is still "no Bigfoot." Same goes for the "diary," only a few maroons still cling onto it out of a need for something to hang their hat on when the sun goes down. The rest of the world doesn't think "the Ripper" ever wrote a diary, nor that Maybrick was the Ripper, funny that, isn't it, considering Ike and a few of his mates seem to think it's something more than it is.

[Mike J. G.]

Have you ever read anything that this distinguished 'published writer' ever wrote....?

Graham

He was a writer, he was a liar, he was seeking financial gain, he was seeking Victorian-era ink, and a Victorian-era diary... I mean, seeing as there's literally no other evidence suggesting anyone else wrote it, if you still can't see any red flags, you're likely colour-blind.

[Ozzy]

The person who wrote the "diary" was no more of a genius than Bono is an artist, or Morrissey is a poet, lol.

lols indeed.
Brightened up my Sunday evening.

[c.d.]

I have a few basic questions about the diary if anybody would be so kind as to answer them:

1. Why did Barrett say he chose the Ripper as a subject to hoax as opposed to something else?

2. Was it his initial intention to pass the diary off as genuine and hopefully sell it to someone or auction it off?

3. What made him admit to writing the diary? Was he facing some sort of investigation or possible criminal charges?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

c.d.

[c.d.]

One more question if you will -- if Barrett's plan was to sell the diary what sort of provenance was he going to give any potential buyer?

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

I don’t know who you would categorize as “Diary defenders” but those ripper researchers and other concerned parties who were there and involved in the preliminary investigations, spending time with and interviewing Mike and Anne for hours and hours, who say that they don’t believe either one of them were capable of forging the Diary, have always left the door open for any evidence that proves otherwise. On this very thread it has been stated that if certain proof is obtainable it would be game-set-match.
Your sweeping generalizations of those who are skeptical that Barrett created it, but are nevertheless still researching the Diary’s origins says more about you than it does them.

JM

Hi JM.

While I don't think anyone should be ridiculed for their beliefs, I think it is fair to point out that not all the early Diary researchers who were "there" believed that Mike and Anne were incapable. Martin Fido once suggested that Graham could have written the Diary with "one hand tied behind her back," and Alan Gray, who did his own investigation (and who had interviewed Mike for "hours and hours") ultimately concluded that the Diary was created by Anne Graham and Tony Devereux.

One irony is that this "they are incapable!" argument seems to have originated with Mike Barrett!

See the 9:43 minute mark in Feldman's The Diary of Jack the Ripper video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-YSff9O430

Barrett: "Tony was never capable of forging. I honestly don't believe he was capable of forging. Okay? So if Tony didn't forge it, where the hell did it come from?"

It's almost as if Barrett was planting the seed of an argument that would later be picked up and voiced by others.

[Graham]

He was a writer, he was a liar, he was seeking financial gain, he was seeking Victorian-era ink, and a Victorian-era diary... I mean, seeing as there's literally no other evidence suggesting anyone else wrote it, if you still can't see any red flags, you're likely colour-blind.

Yes, big shot, but have you ever read anything that Mike Barrett wrote and had published? If you haven't - and I don't think you have otherwise you wouldn't be defending him, why don't you say so? Or are you the troll that many posters here, including me, believe you are?

Graham

[Harry D]

Or are you the troll that many posters here, including me, believe you are?

Who are these "many posters" Graham?

I, for one, see nothing trollish about his posts. "Troll" has become a buzzword that gets thrown out willy-nilly whenever you disagree with someone over the internet. In no uncertain terms he's condemning the diary (and its supporters) for the obvious hoax that it is.

[John Wheat]

Who are these "many posters" Graham?

I, for one, see nothing trollish about his posts. "Troll" has become a buzzword that gets thrown out willy-nilly whenever you disagree with someone over the internet. In no uncertain terms he's condemning the diary (and its supporters) for the obvious hoax that it is.

Yes I'd like to know who these many posters are too Graham?

[StevenOwl]

Who are these "many posters" Graham?

I, for one, see nothing trollish about his posts. "Troll" has become a buzzword that gets thrown out willy-nilly whenever you disagree with someone over the internet. In no uncertain terms he's condemning the diary (and its supporters) for the obvious hoax that it is.

I'm one. His posts all have a mocking tone that suggests to me it's some kind of spoof account or 'sock-puppet'.

[Harry D]

I'm one. His posts all have a mocking tone that suggests to me it's some kind of spoof account or 'sock-puppet'.

Strange. You have no problem when Ike does it.