Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Abby Normal]

I don't even know what that means. It's a fact that he had articles published in his name in Celebrity.

It’s supposed to mean your an optimist, but makes no sense in this context as you were simply stating a simple fact.

[David Orsam]

It’s supposed to mean your an optimist, but makes no sense in this context as you were simply stating a simple fact.

Yes, indeed, it was the context that baffled me. I was accurately reporting the water content of the glass in response to a question from John that could be translated as "Is there any water in the glass?".

[Iconoclast]

Yes, indeed, it was the context that baffled me. I was accurately reporting the water content of the glass in response to a question from John that could be translated as "Is there any water in the glass?".

Wow - here's another one for you guys ... navel-gazing ad absurdum!

Honestly, you don't need to argue everything you lot!

The good Lord's optimism (thank you AN) lay in his generous reference to Barrett as a 'journalist'.

A few articles and the odd crossword does not a journalist make, methinks!

Does a few drops of water a glass of water make???

[David Orsam]

A few articles and the odd crossword does not a journalist make, methinks!

I didn't mention a crossword.

The question was: Is there "any evidence" Mike was a journalist?

The fact that he had articles published under his byline in a nationally sold magazine by a well known publisher over a three year period and was paid for those articles must, by any definition, be evidence that he was a freelance journalist.

[Iconoclast]

I didn't mention a crossword.

The question was: Is there "any evidence" Mike was a journalist?

The fact that he had articles published under his byline in a nationally sold magazine by a well known publisher over a three year period and was paid for those articles must, by any definition, be evidence that he was a freelance journalist.

Why does it need to be you who mentions it? Barrett the author-scrap dealer submitted crosswords as well. I don't recall the details.

Your use of 'journalist' gives credibility to Maybrick where truthfully none can lie. It inflates him, as I suspect it is intended to do.

[John Wheat]

I didn't mention a crossword.

The question was: Is there "any evidence" Mike was a journalist?

The fact that he had articles published under his byline in a nationally sold magazine by a well known publisher over a three year period and was paid for those articles must, by any definition, be evidence that he was a freelance journalist.

If Mike had written articles then the argument that Mike couldn't have written the diary is complete and utter bullshit.

[Iconoclast]

If Mike had written articles then the argument that Mike couldn't have written the diary is complete and utter bullshit.

And therein does the issue lie. What were these articles Barrett had published over a three year period?

I'm thinking The Times or The Observer, maybe The Grauniad?

I'm sure that we're not talking about his celebrity interviews for Look-In magazine, are we? (You know - the ones his wife had to tidy up for him before they could be presented to the children who read that comic.)

[David Orsam]

Why does it need to be you who mentions it?

Because you were commenting on my post with your "half full" comment. I'm saying the evidence for him being a journalist is the articles in Celebrity.

No-one was asking if there was any evidence he was a crossword compiler.

[Iconoclast]

Because you were commenting on my post with your "half full" comment. I'm saying the evidence for him being a journalist is the articles in Celebrity.

No-one was asking if there was any evidence he was a crossword compiler.

It would certainly have added context if you'd considered it though, my Lord.

Apparently, they were similar in nature to John Wheat's interpretation of my views on Maybrick.

[David Orsam]

And therein does the issue lie. What were these articles Barrett had published over a three year period?

I'm thinking The Times or The Observer, maybe The Grauniad?

I'm sure that we're not talking about his celebrity interviews for Look-In magazine, are we? (You know - the ones his wife had to tidy up for him before they could be presented to the children who read that comic.)

Journalists don't only work at the Times, Observer and Guardian you know. They also work at the Sun, Daily Star, Express, Mail, Hello, OK, Woman, etc. etc.

I'm glad you're sure that we're not talking about Look-In because we're not. We are talking about his articles in Celebrity magazine which were mainly, but not exclusively, interviews with celebrities.

[Abby Normal]

Why does it need to be you who mentions it? Barrett the author-scrap dealer submitted crosswords as well. I don't recall the details.

Your use of 'journalist' gives credibility to Maybrick where truthfully none can lie. It inflates him, as I suspect it is intended to do.

He submitted crosswords? As in ones he devised for others to do?
If that’s the case, then he’s smarter that I thought.

That’s not easy to do, actually.

[David Orsam]

Your use of 'journalist' gives credibility to Maybrick where truthfully none can lie. It inflates him, as I suspect it is intended to do.

What else can one possibly call someone who writes articles for a national magazine and gets paid for it?

There is no other word.

He was a freelance journalist.

[John G]

I guess you haven't been following this thread very closely John. In #322 I said:

"Let me first correct the mistaken claim that I believe that Mike concocted the diary. This is something I have never said. What I have said is that Mike's acquisition of the Victorian Diary leads me to the conclusion that he was involved in forging the diary. That involvement could have been no more than obtaining the scrapbook (or not even that, simply an attempt to obtain a diary of some sort which the forger could use). Someone else might have concocted the text and someone else might have written it (and someone else might have obtained the scrapbook). Indeed, in his January 1995 affidavit, Mike claimed that Tony Devereux was involved in the preparations and research of the diary while his wife was the scribe who actually wrote it out based on some kind of pre-prepared draft or notes."

In any case, Melvin Harris has demonstrated very well that the amount of research required to produce the Diary was minimal if any:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

Yes, a number of articles published under his name in Celebrity magazine between 1986 and 1988.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, David. Regarding Mike's profession, personally I think referring to him as a journalist, based upon a few short articles to an obscure magazine I've never heard of, which he may or may not have written, is a bit of a stretch. For instance, if I submit an article or two to, say, an obscure darts publication, which are then published, does that make me a journalist?

I mean would also refer to the excellent post by Chris Jones on the other thread. He states that he visited Mike and viewed a sample of his handwriting, which looked nothing like the writing in the diary. Moreover, it contained numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes (interestingly, Mike was now , in 2002, once again denying ownership of the diary, returning to his original position that it was given to him by TD.)

Now, unlike some people I happen to consider that the diary was reasonably well written, whereas if Mike was the author I think in all likelihood it would have contained many more mistakes, i.e. spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, factual errors. And the fact that he kept changing his story over the years is, of course, a huge red flag.

Personally, I think that Mike started to revel in the publicity surrounding the diary and it's authorship; maybe it was an antidote to his increasingly chaotic personal life. And that might explain why he was happy to claim sole responsibility for the hoax.

On balance, I believe he did have a role, i.e. to act as front man and to perhaps carry out some basic research. But I think someone else, someone close to him, actually wrote it.

[Iconoclast]

Personally, I think that Mike started to revel in the publicity surrounding the diary and it's authorship; maybe it was an antidote to his increasingly chaotic personal life. And that might explain why he was happy to claim sole responsibility for the hoax.

We haven't agreed on anything to date, I think, John G, but you hit he nail roundly on the head with this comment. Spot on.

On balance, I believe he did have a role, i.e. to act as front man and to perhaps carry out some basic research. But I think someone else, someone close to him, actually wrote it.

That's a shame. Just when we were getting on so well ...

[John Wheat]

What else can one possibly call someone who writes articles for a national magazine and gets paid for it?

There is no other word.

He was a freelance journalist.

Nothing anyone who has had an article published in a national magazine is clearly capable of writing a hoax diary as it is Mike had several articles published. And if anything someone who had articles published in The Guardian rather than what one could term the gutter press would have more integrity and would be less likely to write a hoax diary. Come on diary believers the game's up. The diary is a forgery written by Mike Barrett.