Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

[DirectorDave]

Interestingly strokes often effect handwriting!

Did we ever get an answer to the "Handwriting Analysis" query?

If it did actually happen, if it was tested after his stroke then it is of questionable scientific value.

[John Wheat]

How did Fred West get on writing a journal of Jack the Ripper that couldn't be proven a fraud despite twenty-five years and more of trying, by the way?

Blithering idiots are well named, in my view. They tend not to be very clever.

But Fred West got away with murder literally and several times for some time not exactly easy to do.

[John G]

In

Hi John,

Some people feel that if Mike could come out with such fanciful and ludicrous claims, fuelled by alcohol or not, then he was just the kind of person they'd expect to have forged Jack the Ripper's diary. I look at it the other way round. Since he was capable of making obviously false and boastful claims of this nature, why should we believe that his claims to have fooled Feldman, Harrison and co with a fake JtR diary were not more of the same? They were certainly received by Feldman, Harrison and co as obviously false and boastful.

Nobody ever asked or expected to see Mike's MI5 recruitment paperwork or gallantry medal, because nobody believed those fantasies for a moment, yet with nothing to show for when and how such a diary project came into being, or when and how all the research and writing was done, or when and how all the materials were obtained and what became of them, people can be totally convinced by Mike that this wasn't just another of his fantasies, but - to pinch a familiar line of his - the God's honest truth this time. If this had been a disputed painting, which had had the misfortune to end up in Mike's hands, owing to his contacts, I have little doubt he'd have turned his Turner into a Michael 'Mallord' Barrett if and when the going got equally tough for him, and we'd now be discussing his abilities with a paintbrush.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

If the diary was a forgery, I personally think it was very well written, particularly in respect of mood and tone. In fact, my understanding is that a number of highly respected Ripperoligists were prepared to accept that, at the very least, it could be genuine; there was even a TV programme on the diary, which I remember watching-this programme first stimulated my interest in JtR, and at the time I became convinced Maybrick must be guilty!

The eminent criminology, Professor David Canter, was clearly very impressed, believing it to be either genuine or an extremely sophisticated "modern forgery making use of Freudian techniques." See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...canter&f=false

And yet some people on here seem to think that it could have been written by a monkey! As a matter of common sense, if it was that bad a hoax, assuming that's what it is, its authenticity wouldn't still be being discussed over a quarter of a century later, and it wouldn't have fooled so many people. Furthermore, if it was that simple to create a hoax forgeries would be appearing every day of the week.

However, David makes a very good point when he draws attention to the "coincidence" of Mike making strenuous efforts to acquire a Victorian dairy , with very specific specifications, just prior to the diary being released into the public domain.

But could Mike really be the author, as he claimed? Well, at least when the fancy took him! I think it highly significant that virtually every person who interviewed him concluded that he could not be. And this is hardly surprising, considering that he had years of unemployment, during which Anne was compelled to obtain work as a secretary-demonstrating that she , at least, had literacy skills- whilst Mike, by his own admission, had the status of "house-husband", staying at home to look after the child. Even in respect of a significant period of employment that he was able to secure, as a part-time, freelance "journalist", which seemed to consist of submitting a handful of short articles over a period of several years, Anne was required to act as editor. Of course, we're, also told that Mike once stated that he had had a stoke, which might explain his lack of articulation when interviewed. Then again, he also claimed to be impotent and suffering from cancer, and that doesn't seem to have been true. As I've said repeatedly, all of Mike's statements should be considered with extreme caution, so unreliable and inconsistent he proved to be over the years.

Nonetheless, once again assuming that the diary was a hoax, maybe it was conceived, written, and researched by someone close to Mike- perhaps someone with better literacy and research skills-with Mike essentially entrusted to make a phone call to Doreen as his contribution. In such circumstances, with the diary emerging as a roaring success, apparently fooling so many eminent people, would Mike, a man who seemed to be so conscious of his lack of achievements that he once claimed to have been a secret agent, have been content to admit that he played such a menial role in the conspiracy?

Something tells me that's exceedingly unlikely.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes I know you do, Gareth. But would you have been any more impressed by a Liverpudlian cotton merchant and arsenic-eating mutilator of street sex workers, who displayed a word perfect A* work of creative writing worthy of the Booker Prize?

Clearly not, Caz, and I've never implied anything of the sort. What I would expect, however, would be something rather different to the semi-literate and risible attempt at grand guignol that we see in the diary.

[Pcdunn]

Handwriting variations

What we should do is just keep looking for the 4th-person and when they are eliminited from our enquiries look for a 5th-person, and then a 6th-person.

Or we could move on from the Barretts-as-involved-in-hoax theory and either look into who actually could have constructed such a deeply elaborate hoax, or else accept that James Maybrick must have been Jack the Ripper.

PCDunn, we don't have Maybrick's handwriting to compare with so how can we know it wasn't in his? (We have only his formal, public copperplate.)

Hello, Iconoclast, thanks for your reply.

I'm not committed to one theory over the other, at the moment, just trying to get answers to questions about the handwriting. I found the replica of the Diary fascinating, especially given the Author's tendency to seemingly draft his/her little verses complete with scribbles and scratched out words right in the book, then to rewrite the poem in "a clear hand." There is little indication that the Author meant the Diary to be a clean document for public eyes.
That makes sense, given the subject matter.

If the Diary is not written in Maybrick's "formal" (as you call it) handwriting, that doesn't necessarily rule it out. Handwriting can change over the years, and be affected by mood, age, illness, writing surface, etc. Indeed, the Diary's writing changes dramatically at certain places, perhaps reflecting state of mind or drug influence.

It also doesn't rule out a contemporary of Maybrick's writing the strange little book, though some observers say the writing seems "modern" while others say it seems "genuinely Victorian."

And that's another thing-- who are these experts, anyway? I doubt there were really fifty or sixty of them, as Mr. Barnett claimed, but can we find any of them now to get an opinion on the origin of age of the handwriting?

[DirectorDave]

Well until these "experts" turn up Pat you are stuck with me...a no-mark with a brain and a penchant for puzzles.

This is not Victorian script of a well heeled cotton merchant....it looks like the scribblings of a teenage girl from the early 1990s.






Somehow I think we are waiting for Godot.

[Abby Normal]

Well until these "experts" turn up Pat you are stuck with me...a no-mark with a brain and a penchant for puzzles.

This is not Victorian script of a well heeled cotton merchant....it looks like the scribblings of a teenage girl from the early 1990s.






Somehow I think we are waiting for Godot.

It’s not even the script of a well heeled saw dust merchant.

If a thug like bury could write like he did, then someone trying to hoax it in the Victorian period would not have written this poorly.

It’s obviously a modern forgery by someone in the modern era where cursive is a lost art.

[Harry D]

Debating with pro-diarists is like debating the authenticity of the Bible with a devout Christian. They have made that leap of faith and no appeal to reason will convince them it's anything other than the Word of God.

[John Wheat]

Clearly not, Caz, and I've never implied anything of the sort. What I would expect, however, would be something rather different to the semi-literate and risible attempt at grand guignol that we see in the diary.

I agree Sam. Mike Barrett is clearly not too stupid to have fabricated the diary.

[caz]

The full transcript reveals he had a stroke between coming into possession of the photo album and it being revealed.

So the "blithering idiot" portrayal of Mike Barrett that we have accepted over the last 25 years is a false one...he was in fact a man recovering from a stroke.

Hi DD,

Does this mean you also accept Mike was 'in fact' a member of MI5, who was awarded a gallantry medal for foiling an IRA plot? Because he said so?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

However, David makes a very good point when he draws attention to the "coincidence" of Mike making strenuous efforts to acquire a Victorian dairy , with very specific specifications, just prior to the diary being released into the public domain.

Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi John,

I just wondered where you got the idea that Mike made 'strenuous efforts' to get hold of the tiny 1891 diary, which was sent to him at the end of March 1992, as a result of what seems to have been a single telephone enquiry on his part?

Also, Mike's 'very specific' specifications failed to include any page size requirement and allowed for the requested diary to have been for any year from 1880 to 1890. I wonder if David has calculated the chances of such an enquiry producing anything that would have proved suitable for the text of 'the' diary as we know it?

Just suppose Mike saw the 1889 date on the last handwritten page of 'the' diary, and simply wanted to find out how easy it would have been for some practical joker to get hold of an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s. Would you say the actual wording of the advert would then sound just about right for that brief?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Well, perhaps on reflection, I should have used a more apt adjective than "strenuous". I don't know, maybe Mike's love of the melodramatic is becoming infectious!

Nonetheless, I think the advert was fairly specific in its requirements. For instance, the diary had to date from 1880-1890, and therefore not just simply a Victorian diary, which would have covered the period 1837-1901. Additionally, it had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages, which is consistent with someone planing a hoax (I'm not sure what else it's consistent with).

Why would Mike want to obtain an unused or partly used diary from the 1880s for purposes of a practical joke? In other words, exactly what practical joke was he intending to play?

[Bridewell]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

[John Wheat]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

I think you've summed up the sensible position Bridewell. All the diary fans can come up with in response is that Mike Barrett was too stupid to fabricate the diary. What a pathetic response. A published journalist and a known bullshiter not being able to fabricate quite a simplistic document. Come off it. Even if Mike didn't solely fabricate the diary so what it wouldn't have taken a genius to assist him.

[Abby Normal]

For me it boils down to this.

The diary purports to have been written in the 1880's by James Maybrick who chose to use, not an 1888 diary, but a scrap-book from that period with some pages torn out.

Why did the author use a scrapbook instead of an 1888 diary?

Likely (IMHO) reason: he couldn't get hold of an 1888 diary.

Availability, in 1888, of an unused 1888 diary? A doddle.

Availability, at a later date, of an unused 1888 diary? Problematic if not almost impossible.

My conclusion: The diary was not written in the late 1880's and therefore not written by James Maybrick. If it wasn't written by James Maybrick it is, de facto, a forgery and it's authorship is academic.

Hi Bridewell
yup and another take on it:

The author states that he wanted it to be found and be known that he James Maybrick was the ripper.

therefor, not only would he not disguise/alter his handwriting, he wouldn't hide it. Hence Maybrick did not write it. (its not his handwriting).

so were left with possibility of old forgery. An old forger also would not have hid it. Nor used the phrase one off instance, or tin box empty etc. hence not an old forger.

and neither as you say would have used a photo album.

and ZERO evidence it came out of Battlecrease.

so were left with modern forgery. who was the modern forger?
The provenance starts and ends with MB and his wife.

MB attempted to obtain a Victorian diary.

the lies and changing stories exemplify he/they have zero credibility.

MB forged it probably with the help of his wife.

why its still being defended or argued that there is still some question about its origin is simply remarkable.