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

[John G]

Hi Caz,

Just a couple of questions that I hope you'll be able to answer. Firstly, by way of background; it seems to me that most people who interviewed, or conversed, with Mike think it unlikely that he could have written the diary. However, an important point is that if the diary is a hoax, as I firmly believe, we do not know precisely when it was written.

Therefore my first question is this: am I right in thinking that most people who discussed the diary with Mike did so during a low period of his life, i.e. at a time when he was descending into alcoholism and is marriage was on the rocks?

Now, I could understand why it is reasoned that that Mike, alcoholic Mike, couldn't have written the diary. But what about the younger Mike, the Mike who was able to hold down a job as a freelance journalist- do you think he could have written the diary?

[caz]

To be fair, I don't think anyone claimed that. My understanding is that Anne claimed it was given to Billy Graham in a trunk with other effects left to him by his Grandmother. He took no interest in it, and he eventually gave it to Anne who also had no interest in it until she had the idea of giving it to Mike via Tony. You don't believe the story, fair enough, but it was Keith Skinner's favoured version of events until the 'Battlecrease provenance' became more compelling to him. Personally, I put more stock in the opinion of someone who's been there witnessing the unfolding of the Diary saga first hand, and speaking to all those involved, for 25 years than a bunch of keyboard detectives on an internet forum.

Nicely said, Steven.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of Course Keith's views should be highly respected, although the fact that he's changed his mind over the years demonstrates what a complex case this is.

Indeed, John. More complex than so many claim to believe. In my experience, it's the ones who have only skimmed the surface who most easily convince themselves that it's a simple case with an even simpler solution, while those who have spent the most time and effort exploring every last nook and cranny, are the ones who concede that it's anything but.

For some reason, and for some posters, changing one's mind in the light of new, or more 'compelling' information, is considered a 'bad' thing. I find that frankly astonishing and depressing in equal measure.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

The story about the diary being left in a trunk is something else that doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, who on earth would do such a thing?

Consider this: The Grahams possess a fusty old diary-and if it was kept in a trunk for decades, hardly the most ideal storage space, I think we have the right to assume it was fusty-but over a considerable period of time, possibly around a century, they do nothing with it: they do not throw it out; they don't attempt to get it valued; they don't try and sell it; they don't get it authenticated. This is despite the fact that they apparently attach no value to the object-Billy and Anne Graham, we are told, had no interest in it whatsoever.

I mean, who would behave in such away? Have they not heard of spring cleaning? Were they a family of hoarders?

Meanwhile, Anne, who erstwhile has shown no interest in the object over a period of, say, decades, suddenly has an aberration, deciding that it is now so valuable that it is worthwhile her husband turning it into a novel, as well as having the capability of boosting his self esteem.

However, she doesn't do what any normal person would do-hand it to him directly. No; she embarks on a convoluted, secretive, and somewhat hairbrained scheme to get it to him indirectly via his friend Tony Devereux, who then concocts some fanciful story as to how it came to be in his possession.

As I asked earlier, would behave in such a bizarre fashion?

I have to say that, in all honesty, none of this makes much sense to me.

[caz]

'A bunch of keyboard detectives' - Steven, I have some ointment you can put on your saddle-sore backside when you decide to climb down off your high-horse.

Whether or not someone has 'been there witnessing' the unfolding of various narratives has literally no bearing on their ability to spot logical and narrative absurdities in a given story.

The logical and narrative absurdities in the stories made up by modern hoax believers around here, just so they can be knocked down again, are all too easy to spot, yet some people miss them, choose to ignore them, or milk them for all they are worth, as if they can actually tell us anything.

And besides: if Keith has become personally involved, talked with these people, and used to hold Anne's story the most likely, but then changed his mind and now believes the floorboards story most likely - which is a complete change - then what special extra credibility does that give him? He believed one thing likely, now he believes a completely different thing most likely, but that's ok, because he met these people (some of whom must inescapably have been lying to him through their teeth) and we armchair detectives haven't?! Really, that's what counts to you? That's thoroughly effing dismal, mate.

Look, Henry, if Keith doesn't find the 'Maybrick wrote it' theory compelling, nor the 'Mike and Anne wrote it between them' theory compelling, what's a man to do, but explore any alternative that's ever been suggested or claimed, to see how far it can take him, and whether he could describe any of them as compelling, or at least slightly more so than the others?

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Indeed, John. More complex than so many claim to believe. In my experience, it's the ones who have only skimmed the surface who most easily convince themselves that it's a simple case with an even simpler solution, while those who have spent the most time and effort exploring every last nook and cranny, are the ones who concede that it's anything but.

For some reason, and for some posters, changing one's mind in the light of new, or more 'compelling' information, is considered a 'bad' thing. I find that frankly astonishing and depressing in equal measure.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I completely agree, there are no simple solutions. 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. Moreover, as we don't know when the diary was written, then assuming it's a modern forgery- it might not be-it's difficult to assess whether he had the capability of writing it, especially considering his eventual descent into alcoholism and question marks about his literacy skills.

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.

By the way, I frequently change my mind on important issues-apart from the Wallace case, of course, where I've steadfastly held the view Wallace was probably innocent!- which I think is no bad thing.

[Observer]

Hi Caz,

I completely agree, there are no simple solutions. 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. Moreover, as we don't know when the diary was written, then assuming it's a modern forgery- it might not be-it's difficult to assess whether he had the capability of writing it, especially considering his eventual descent into alcoholism and question marks about his literacy skills.

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.

By the way, I frequently change my mind on important issues-apart from the Wallace case, of course, where I've steadfastly held the view Wallace was probably innocent!- which I think is no bad thing.

it's irrelevant how he obtained the job as a freelance journalist, just as it's irrelevant as to his literacy skills. The fact is his name appears as the as the creator of the pieces published in the magazine. In other words the magazine has recognised that he was the author of those pieces. The articles must have been submitted in some kind of reasonable English, or else they would have went into the bin. By the way, you made the mildly mocking comment that DC Thompson are the publishers of The Beano. Well yes they are, but DC Thompson are a reputable publishing house, responsible for 200 million sales of newspapers, magazines, and yes comics per year, which include, The Sunday Post, The Dundee Courier, My Weekly, and The Scotsman to name but a few.

One final thing, you still havn't answered my question from a previous post namely. Why do you suppose Mike Barrett obtained the red/maroon Victorian diary in March 92?

[Observer]

Further, I was impressed by your post which I submit below. Very relevant questions in my opinion.

Hi Caz,

Just a couple of questions that I hope you'll be able to answer. Firstly, by way of background; it seems to me that most people who interviewed, or conversed, with Mike think it unlikely that he could have written the diary. However, an important point is that if the diary is a hoax, as I firmly believe, we do not know precisely when it was written.

Therefore my first question is this: am I right in thinking that most people who discussed the diary with Mike did so during a low period of his life, i.e. at a time when he was descending into alcoholism and is marriage was on the rocks?

Now, I could understand why it is reasoned that that Mike, alcoholic Mike, couldn't have written the diary. But what about the younger Mike, the Mike who was able to hold down a job as a freelance journalist- do you think he could have written the diary?

I was less than impressed to find Caz has not addressed those questions. Perhaps it was an oversight, I don't know. It would be interesting however to see what her answers to those questions are

[John G]

it's irrelevant how he obtained the job as a freelance journalist, just as it's irrelevant as to his literacy skills. The fact is his name appears as the as the creator of the pieces published in the magazine. In other words the magazine has recognised that he was the author of those pieces. The articles must have been submitted in some kind of reasonable English, or else they would have went into the bin. By the way, you made the mildly mocking comment that DC Thompson are the publishers of The Beano. Well yes they are, but DC Thompson are a reputable publishing house, responsible for 200 million sales of newspapers, magazines, and yes comics per year, which include, The Sunday Post, The Dundee Courier, My Weekly, and The Scotsman to name but a few.

One final thing, you still havn't answered my question from a previous post namely. Why do you suppose Mike Barrett obtained the red/maroon Victorian diary in March 92?

Okay, I concede the matter of Mike's literacy skills are somewhat irrelevant, or at least are bound to be inconclusive as regards whether he was the author of the diary. For instance, Gareth points out the diary contains a number of spelling and grammatical mistakes so you could actually turn the argument on its head: if Mike had good literacy skills, would he have made those mistakes?

Regarding Mike's employment with D.C. Thompson. We cannot know how he obtained that employment. Thus, David tells me that he secured a number of interviews with famous people; that seems a bit odd to me, considering he only seemed to be a part-time freelance journalist, and then only for a relatively short period. Is it possible he had connections to the world of celebrity? If so, could that be the main reason for employing him? Or perhaps he just had a knack of conversing with celebrities. I can imagine that they're not always the easiest people to interview.

Before I answer your question about the diary, I will provide some context. Mike appears to be a kind of Walter Mitty character, whose statements often proved to be highly unreliable. For instance, according to Shirley Harrison he once made the bizarre claim that he was a member of MI5. He also said that he foiled an IRA attack and had been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry. Suffice to say, anything Mike may have said should be taken treated with extreme caution.

Regarding the maroon diary. According to a sworn affidavit in 1995 he claimed that it was Anne who had purchased it, but gets the dates mixed up by estimating it was bought in early 1990. He then goes on to say that it was too small for its intended purpose-The Diary of Jack the Ripper-but once again demonstrates his unreliability by saying that he bought a replacement, from an auction, in January 1990-this date can't possibly be right, moreover, I don't believe anyone has managed to find any record of the purchase.

In conclusion, it's difficult to say why he bought the diary. One possibility, of course, is that this time he was telling the truth; it really was for the purpose of forging Maybrick's diary. Another possibility is that he was part of a conspiracy, with part of his role being the acquisition, but not the writing, of the diary. Or, considering Mike's proven unreliability, maybe none of these alternatives are true.

[caz]

I am always astounded that this carries on after 25 years. To read the posts on the subject only Ike is openly still arguing that JM was the author.
Given there is no actual evidence that he was the author and people such as Caz believe it to be not by his hand, why oh why is it still debated with such Passion?

Unless by JM it is totally irrelevant.

Steve

Takes two to tango, Steve.

It wouldn't still be debated if all those who, like you, consider it totally irrelevant, or an obvious modern hoax, didn't keep sticking your oars in, for all the world as though you are worried that if you don't, thousands of Maybrickians will slither out of the woodwork, or from under the floorboards if you prefer, and take over your ripper world here.

Why keep the debate alive like this, if you genuinely feel there is nothing to debate? I tend to avoid like the plague any supposed 'mysteries' I consider either irrelevant or already resolved to my total satisfaction.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I agree Steve. I'm 99 per cent sure the diary was written by Mike Barrett. Even if it wasn't written by Mike Barrett. It certainly wasn't written by James Maybrick.

Cheers John

By 'written', John, you surely don't mean he penned it himself, do you?

And by 'written', you surely don't mean he composed the text himself, do you?

Astonishing.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

By 'written', John, you surely don't mean he penned it himself, do you?

And by 'written', you surely don't mean he composed the text himself, do you?

Astonishing.

Love,

Caz
X

Astonishing. Come off it. A journalist such as Mike could easily have written the diary.

[caz]

Henry quite probably stated aloud what a lot of people were thinking privately.
That said, it might be pointed out in Keith Skinner's defense (and Shirley Harrison's for that matter) that by staying 'close' to Mike Barrett and Anne Graham, they were able to gather information that would have otherwise been lost. None of the early researchers had the powers of the police; they couldn't subpoena witnesses or demand bank statements, lie detector tests, etc., They had to muddle through the best they could and use persuasion. It's ironic; I'm completely a 'modern hoax' advocate--I think there is not doubt whatsoever--but I think we owe them something of a debt. Harrison 'made the rounds,' questioned people, and reported back. And (irony again) the single gravest piece of evidence against Barrett--the purchase of the maroon diary--would not have been fully confirmed if Keith had not obtained it from Anne Graham (along with the receipt). He couldn't have done that from the wings. So that certainly demonstrates great integrity--something worth remembering as we rake one another over the coals.

Hi rj,

Regardless of how we feel about Anne Graham [and I am no fan], she did co-operate fully with Keith over the purchase of that supposedly damning maroon diary, when she could presumably have denied all knowledge of it in 1995, following Mike's affidavit, and I'm not sure how easy it would have been for anyone to prove its existence, considering that Mike gave no date for its purchase, but mentioned it in the context of when he and Anne finally decided to go ahead with their little forgery project: 'Roughly round about January, February 1990, Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for £25...'.

How do you explain Anne's willingness to admit to this purchase and provide the evidence for when it was made [not 1990 but 1992], which enabled Keith to track down the advert following Mike's telephone enquiry? Did she not anticipate that it might come back to bite her, by supporting Mike's claim that they were in it together? She must have known, even if Mike had forgotten, that this crucial period in 1992 was when the final pen strokes were being lovingly applied to Mike's very recently acquired photo album - if this was actually the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Astonishing. Come off it. A journalist such as Mike could easily have written the diary.

You have no evidence that Mike could easily have written the diary. Just wishful thinking. And I notice you failed to address what you meant by 'written'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That poll is in no way definitive, as access to the poll is not restricted, e.g. limited to Casework members only. As I recall, people could vote for a suspect as many times as they liked. The poll is as vulnerable to vote-rigging as Amazon's rating system was (or still is) vulnerable to bumped-up, fake reviews.

Ah, so the tiny handful of people who favoured Maybrick as the best of a very poor bunch must have voted loads of times, while all those favouring any other suspect were good little boys and girls and only voted the once.

Unbelievable.

Love,

Caz
X