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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Iconoclast]

He doubles down on it later in the interview.

Well thank you very much because
I’ve had a stroke in between and it can’t buy
you health. And all the money in the world
can’t buy you health. And I mean that. It
just can’t buy you health.

I wish we had that full transcript 25 years ago, understandable the bit about the stroke was kept from us, clearly Mike Barrett has been set up to be viewed a certain way.

Oh - he says it twice so it absolutely must be true!

I'm reasonably confidnet that one of Mike's other claims was that he had infiltrated the provos whilst working for MI5.

That would certainly explain the stress which led to his eventual stroke.

[Iconoclast]

I was never convinced he was a blithering idiot. Besides assuming someone is too stupid to do something is dangerous territory. I'm sure many were surprised that the blithering idiot Fred West was a serial killer.

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.

[DirectorDave]

I was never convinced he was a blithering idiot. Besides assuming someone is too stupid to do something is dangerous territory. I'm sure many were surprised that the blithering idiot Fred West was a serial killer.

He doubles down on it later in the interview.

Well thank you very much because
I’ve had a stroke in between and it can’t buy
you health. And all the money in the world
can’t buy you health. And I mean that. It
just can’t buy you health.

I wish we had that full transcript 25 years ago, understandable the bit about the stroke was kept from us, clearly Mike Barrett has been set up to be viewed a certain way.

[John Wheat]

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.

I was never convinced he was a blithering idiot. Besides assuming someone is too stupid to do something is dangerous territory. I'm sure many were surprised that the blithering idiot Fred West was a serial killer.

[DirectorDave]

man

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.

[John Wheat]

What? Because I actually have a life away from these boards, which means I can't sit here reading and responding immediately to each new post? Come on, John, give me a break. You previously told me to shut up and now I read that my silence has been deafening.

It must be equally deafening on the other diary threads, which I simply haven't had time to catch up with yet, and won't be doing so for some time to come, as I am taking a break next week to show my better half round the better pubs and sights of Liverpool. The diary saga will not be featuring.

Love,

Caz
X

No it's when asked to give evidence you come up with nothing.

[Iconoclast]

To get back to the topic, particularly that it is a forgery of the 20th century: who wrote it, if handwriting analysis apparently does NOT match either Mr or Mrs Barrett, or their friend Tony D.?

Are we to assume they had a fourth, unknown accomplice who did the copying of the text into the photo album turned "diary"? If so, why did that person stay "mum" all these years?

How big a conspiracy of forgers was this supposed to be, anyway?

And why does the Diary begin in mid-sentence, with some pages removed?

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.)

[caz]

Too nudey. I'm still in my dressing gown from this morning!

Off now for some Friday night F and G. And R E S P E C T.

Fun and games. And some soul music would be good too.

Love,

Caz
X