Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[DirectorDave]

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.

He had a word processor he bought in 1985?

How many people do you know who had one in their home in 1985?

[John G]

He had a word processor he bought in 1985?

How many people do you know who had one in their home in 1985?

I think that may have been a bit of a vanity purchase. I mean, he only seemed to have submitted a few short articles, so he doesn't seem to have used it much in the course of his "journalism". And if it's to be argued that he purchased it in order to type up a draft of the diary, why did it take him 7 years? Especially when you consider the diary was a relatively short document:; it was certainly no War and Peace!

[David Orsam]

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?

But we're not talking about "an obscure darts publication". It was a national magazine published by a reputable publisher (D.C. Thomson), featuring articles by Mike over a three year period, based on interviews, often with famous people, at least one of which was featured on the cover, and Mike was getting paid for them. Further he had a byline and as the below example shows was given the tag of "EXCLUSIVE". Who else but a journalist has "Exclusive" in their byline?

I'm not saying he was a journalist in 1992 but between 1986 and 1988 he was clearly and indisputably working and receiving income as a freelance journalist.

[David Orsam]

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.

Not much point in this exercise. In his affidavit Mike claimed that his wife wrote out the diary. So a comparison of Mike's handwriting with the diary handwriting was never likely to achieve very much, and the author of the diary is hardly likely to have written it in their own normal handwriting anyway. I don't even know why you bothered posted the above bearing in mind that, as you say, there is a fair chance that someone close to him actually wrote it.

[David Orsam]

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.

It depends what you mean by "author". The text could have been drafted over a long period of time with input from others, correcting errors. There were, it might be noted, no spelling mistakes or grammatical errors that I spotted in the articles in Celebrity under Mike Barrett's name.

[DirectorDave]

I think that may have been a bit of a vanity purchase. I mean, he only seemed to have submitted a few short articles, so he doesn't seem to have used it much in the course of his "journalism". And if it's to be argued that he purchased it in order to type up a draft of the diary, why did it take him 7 years? Especially when you consider the diary was a relatively short document:; it was certainly no War and Peace!

I'm not suggesting he bought it to write the diary, I'm simply stating anyone who had one of these things in the mid-eighties when they were very expensive points to an interest in writing.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello John

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.

But it is full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. As to factual errors, there are very few facts in the diary to begin with; note even dates. This in itself may be significant, as I believe that a more competent and well-briefed hoaxer would surely have included them.

Personally, I find the diary very poorly written and superficially researched to boot.

[Sam Flynn]

There were, it might be noted, no spelling mistakes or grammatical errors that I spotted in the articles in Celebrity under Mike Barrett's name.

The kind of skills required to write such "pop" articles aren't at quite the same level as those which the diarist attempts, and spectacularly fails, to display.

[Sam Flynn]

...note even dates.

Sorry, "NOT even dates". Predictive text strikes again.

[John G]

But we're not talking about "an obscure darts publication". It was a national magazine published by a reputable publisher (D.C. Thomson), featuring articles by Mike over a three year period, based on interviews, often with famous people, at least one of which was featured on the cover, and Mike was getting paid for them. Further he had a byline and as the below example shows was given the tag of "EXCLUSIVE". Who else but a journalist has "Exclusive" in their byline?

I'm not saying he was a journalist in 1992 but between 1986 and 1988 he was clearly and indisputably working and receiving income as a freelance journalist.

Well I would just point out that DC Thomson also published The Beano! But you make a fair point overal. I am, however, intrigued that an obscure freelance journalist managed to interview a number of celebrities. Did Mike have connections to the celebrity world? If so, might that not be how he obtained the job, rather than his literary skills? I mean, we can have no idea as to what extent his articles may have been edited by the publication.

[David Orsam]

Well I would just point out that DC Thomson also published The Beano! But you make a fair point overal. I am, however, intrigued that an obscure freelance journalist managed to interview a number of celebrities. Did Mike have connections to the celebrity world? If so, might that not be how he obtained the job, rather than his literary skills? I mean, we can have no idea as to what extent his articles may have been edited by the publication.

The same is true of all articles by all journalists, we have no idea to what extent they may have been edited by their respective publications. That's the job of editors and sub-editors. But this is the very point I am making about the Diary. We have no idea to what extent the text may have been edited prior to it being written out and provided to Doreen.

As for how Mike got the job or contacted the celebs or how good a journalist he was or whether he had "literary skills", those are other questions. All I am saying is that he was receiving income as a (freelance) journalist between 1986 and 1988.

[David Orsam]

Also, according to Anne Graham, "Michael had always had an idea he wanted to write." (The American Connection, 2003, p.387)

[John Wheat]

Hello John
But it is full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. As to factual errors, there are very few facts in the diary to begin with; note even dates. This in itself may be significant, as I believe that a more competent and well-briefed hoaxer would surely have included them.

Personally, I find the diary very poorly written and superficially researched to boot.

I agree with you for once Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with you for once Sam

Delighted to hear it, John! I'm sure there are plenty of other things on which we'd agree, too... apart from the obvious one

[David Orsam]

John G, I didn't have you down as a slippery character but you've been a bit naughty in the other Maybrick thread today. You wrote:

Regarding the hypothesis that Mike wrote the diary, for example. As David concedes, there is no proof he did any research into Maybrick, or any other aspect of the case for that matter.

Apart from the fact that I made no such concession, what I said very clearly to you in this thread was that "it's utterly meaningless to say that there is no evidence, if the issue has never been properly investigated". So why would you think I would have said something utterly meaningless?

You made exactly the same point in reverse to me when you said: "Surely to simply argue that Mike carried out the research on the basis that there's no evidence he didn't is, ultimately, reductio ad absurdum." Conversely, to simply argue that Mike did not carry out the research on the basis that there is no evidence that he did is equally reductio ad absurdum. Strange, therefore, that in the above quote you are using the absence of proof as a point against the hypothesis that Mike wrote the diary. Literally absurd!

You also wrote:

David, of course, has pointed out that he previously had a career as a freelance journalist, but even this creates problems: we don't know as to what extent his articles may have been edited, as David also concedes, or how he obtained the job.

But I didn't "concede" anything here at all. I was making a positive point. Just as we don't know to what extent Mike's articles might have been edited, we also don't know to what extent the text of the Diary might have been edited. And possibly edited by the very same person! In other words, if Mike was capable of producing magazine articles (perhaps with editorial assistance) it could be concluded that he was equally capable of producing the Ripper Diary (with similar editorial assistance).

So there really is no "problem" created by the possibility of Mike's articles being edited nor, might I add, is there any "problem" created by the fact that we don't know how Mike obtained the job. A lack of knowledge, once again, tells us precisely nothing. It certainly doesn't cause a problem.