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

[rjpalmer]

He was too afraid of a libel action to expose his suspect...

So, I take it you're not a big fan of Sir Robert Anderson and his Polish Jew theory.

[John Wheat]

When asked to give some evidence to back up that Mike didn't fabricate the diary your silence is deafening Caz

Actually come to think of it is there one shred of actual evidence to suggest that Mike Barrett didn't fabricate the diary?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I'm guessing you haven't yet read my book.

SRA was a serial fabulist.

Aloha,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

And despite your protestations that you have the highest respect for Keith's work, you ought not to treat your readers as total idiots. We can all read what you think of Anne's story - the biggest, smelliest pile of horse poo ever - so it's particularly disingenuous to pretend this is somehow not remotely disrespectful towards anyone who has spent more than ten minutes actually exploring the possibility of it being true.

Oh dear. So now we must not accuse a serious and respected researcher of making what we think is a mistake, because to do so is disrespectful? Please, don't be so precious, Caz - I'm sure Keith isn't. (By the way - excellent news that KS will now be here on the boards, his contributions will be - and already have been - invaluable and absorbing.) I'm sure he's not claiming infallibility, Caz, so please don't worry on his behalf. I've read most of Keith's published work on JtR and I hold him in the highest regard, not withstanding that I think he was wrong to accept something as important and as vital as a purported provenance for the diary of the Whitechapel killer, despite it sounding just plain daft at every turn, on the basis that Anne and Mike had a weird marriage and Mike was a mess.

I do wonder how it would be if the police took the attitude that 'keeping a certain distance' and not questioning anyone directly was the key to 'clarity' and establishing the facts of any case.

I don't quite know where you're getting this idea from, dear Caz. Possibly you pulled it right out of your ass. Did I ever suggest anything other than that it was brilliant that people were asking questions of the protagonists and digging deep into the details? The wood-for-the-trees aspect refers only to the need not to do what you have done - get so far into the detail, so blinded by the minutiae and your own expertise, that you lose sight of the bigger picture, viz: the diary of Jack the Ripper has no properly demonstrated or documented provenance beyond a man who was a published freelance writer, who acquired a partially blank Victorian diary, and who made two confessions to having forged the thing. Beyond that there is what may be a coincidence of dates regarding the possible lifting of floorboards, and the deeply, unfathomably unlikely story that came from Anne.

In short, you don't get to tell me I have no respect for Keith Skinner just because I think he happened to make an error. His research is outstanding, but I think it led him to a conclusion, at least temporarily, that must surely be wrong. So you can stick that attempt at emotional blackmail back where it came from, Caz. You seem to be getting rather desperate. You used to have a sense of humour. If you can rediscover it, it might serve you better than this current approach.

Love,

HF x

[Kaz]

....His research is outstanding, but I think it led him to a conclusion, at least temporarily, that must surely be wrong.

Not temporarily my ole flower, please refer to post #100....


maybe..... just maybe having hold of all of the information and talking to all the main players isn't a negative??

[Henry Flower]

from KS :-

TO HENRY F.

It is true that I do presently favour the line of investigation which suggests the diary may have come out of Battlecrease House on March 9th 1992.

Favouring a line of investigation is something we would all support. It's a very careful choice of words, and of course nobody thinks the Battlecrease provenance theory should not be investigated.

There is direct evidence to show that, on that day, some sort of floorboard activity was presumably going on in Paul Dodd’s living room, as part of the work involved in the preparation to have storage heaters installed later in the summer.

Some sort of activity was presumably going on? I have no problem with this being further investigated, because we all read the build-up given in the blurb of a certain book, which claimed that there was finally conclusive evidence of a Battlecrease provenance. It turns out, however, that some sort of activity was presumably taking place involving floorboards and storage heaters. David Orsam has done a fine job detailing the very grave difficulties in concluding that this presumed activity had anything to do with the discovery of the hidden diary of Jaybrick. (Can I call him that? Does anyone mind?)

Comparison with the 1889 plan of Battlecrease House and the room where this work was being undertaken, shows it to be the same room where James Maybrick died in May 1889. ( I don’t know if this fact was known by Paul Dodd or any of the electricians who worked at the house).

I like that it is alleged to have been found in the very room in which Maybrick died. It's fittingly melodramatic.

There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper.

I imagine the thrill of discovering the coincidence of dates was a real epiphany, a hallelujah-chorus moment. And you're not perturbed that the call happens before close of business the very same day the floorboards presumably came up? What time did these electricians get to The Saddle? Had the floorboards never been lifted before? Some people seem to think they had been; do you?

There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related.

Agreed.

If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike.

If the Battlecrease provenance could somehow be definitively verified (and that doesn't appear to me possible, let alone probable), that would mean Anne's story was a pack of lies from start to finish, wouldn't it? This is quite the balancing act, Keith. If it turned out to be a pack of lies, what would you think of her, and what would your guess be as to why she had lied? (I feel it's fair to ask this, as you say you currently favour that scenario.)

I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories. If ultimately it is conclusively established the diary did come out of the house then, in my opinion, we are still light years away from being able to claim that JM was JTR or even wrote the diary or even knew of its existence! Contrary to what I sometimes see hinted at on these boards, I have no vested or financial interest in being able to resolve this one way or another and neither does Caroline. I could not care less whether I am right or wrong. I don’t seek to persuade anybody to share my way of thinking. I am only interested in the truth and where practically possible to share with people material I have accumulated over the past quarter of a century as information and not propaganda.

Best Wishes

Keith

I absolutely respect and don't doubt a word of that, Keith, and I sincerely hope you will disregard Caz's rather unpleasant attempt to stir trouble by insinuating that in thinking you might be badly mistaken about one thing, however vital, I am in some way disrespecting you or your work. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact if that were the impression you were left with I would rather hold my tongue and enjoy reading your contributions without comment, so as to avoid irritating a Ripper writer whose work I've always enjoyed and appreciated. Thanks for the reply, and glad to see you here under your own auspices at last.

[Henry Flower]

Lovely warm welcome Flower is giving to Keith...

Has tremendous respect BUT :-



For that opinion thinks he's a gullible fool... priceless

There's only one person around here I think a fool, Kaz.

Keith Skinner doesn't need the likes of you trolling on his behalf.

I don't think Keith Skinner is a gullible fool, I think he is wrong about Anne's story. The last time I looked, there was no law against that. You're coming across as a silly child, you actually contribute nothing at all beyond sneering and scoffing. Is there a way I can 'mute' your posts so as to avoid wasting my time with a dull infantile troll?

[Henry Flower]

Someone needs to step away from the computer..back to his paint brushes...

You seem to have made the hilarious error of presuming I would give a damn what you think.

Wrong!

[Henry Flower]

Not temporarily my ole flower, please refer to post #100....


maybe..... just maybe having hold of all of the information and talking to all the main players isn't a negative??

Wrong, Kaz. I say temporarily because I am confident at some point KS will have reason to conclude that Anne was not telling the truth. The fact that he somehow has 'not abandoned' Anne's version, despite currently favouring an alternative scenario that would imply every word of Anne's story was untrue, does not mean that the credence he gives to it is not temporary.

You need to pay more attention to the words people use. 'Temporarily' doesn't mean currently not held, it means not permanently held, and I stand by that.

[John Wheat]

You seem to have made the hilarious error of presuming I would give a damn what you think.

Wrong!

Both Caz and Kaz talk a lot about how Mike Barrett a published journalist couldn't possibly have fabricated the diary but bring nothing whatsoever as evidence to back this up. And then berate people who don't agree with there preferred and clearly incorect position Henry.

[Henry Flower]

Both Caz and Kaz talk a lot about how Mike Barrett a published journalist couldn't possibly have fabricated the diary but bring nothing whatsoever as evidence to back this up. And then berate people who don't agree with there preferred and clearly incorect position Henry.

I'll be honest John, I don't want to lump Caz in with Kaz. Her recent nasty attempt to insinuate that I am disrespecting KS aside, I have a lot of time for Caz and enjoy what she brings to the boards; even when I can't agree with her (which is not always the case) I respect the way she can build a case and marshal facts behind her ideas. She also asks needley little questions that need to be asked, but unfortunately does so seemingly only in one direction. Is Caz's position 'clearly incorrect'? Not clearly, no. I happen to think it's a modern forgery, not an old one, but that might be wrong, Caz might be right, and that would be no problem for me. It's not personal, and it's not partisan.

Kaz, on the other hand, is a tedious troll, and does exactly as you describe.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ, I'm guessing you haven't yet read my book.

Rest easy, Simon. There is now a copy in the South Seas, and I greatly enjoyed the last 400 pages. Alas, I confess that I often felt like dousing the first 150 with a good Irish whiskey, and, once ablaze, read and intone in the flickering green light of their painful death, the entire ten million minutes of the Times' Parnell Commission in search of your curiously missing evidence.

Meanwhile, if the stock market drops any further, I may have to rent your dog-house, in which case we can compare notes on SRA at leisure. Sorry Maybrickians for the interruption.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I've carved your name over our dog house door and tucked a bottle of Irish Single Malt in the far corner behind Rover's bowl.

Please know that you are welcome at any time.

Regards,

Simon

[John Wheat]

I'll be honest John, I don't want to lump Caz in with Kaz. Her recent nasty attempt to insinuate that I am disrespecting KS aside, I have a lot of time for Caz and enjoy what she brings to the boards; even when I can't agree with her (which is not always the case) I respect the way she can build a case and marshal facts behind her ideas. She also asks needley little questions that need to be asked, but unfortunately does so seemingly only in one direction. Is Caz's position 'clearly incorrect'? Not clearly, no. I happen to think it's a modern forgery, not an old one, but that might be wrong, Caz might be right, and that would be no problem for me. It's not personal, and it's not partisan.

Kaz, on the other hand, is a tedious troll, and does exactly as you describe.

Hi Henry

I will admit that Caz does at least bring something to the party whereas as you say Kaz is a tedious troll.

Cheers John

[John G]

Hi John,

Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery discussed the diary with Mike from the start, in the Spring of 1992, when he had supposedly only just acquired the scrap book to complete its creation. Others, like Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Martin Howells and Paul Feldman, were discussing it with Mike at various points during 1993, well before his life fell apart and he finally claimed, in June 1994, to have authored it himself. None of the above, as far as I am aware, thought it feasible that he could have done this. Even Melvin Harris said he didn't have 'the capacity', although I'm not sure he ever actually spoke to Mike, so I don't know what informed his opinion.

Anne claimed that Mike was drinking heavily by 1988, but as others have pointed out, this need not have impaired his normal abilities to research and write unaided, of which little seems to be known, thanks to Anne tidying up his efforts. He did get sober in his later years, however, and wasn't always drunk as a skunk when making forgery claims, yet he never managed to produce a single piece of unaided writing, in or out of 'confession' mode, that remotely suggested he may once have had the right tools for the job. He could have been bluffing, of course, but if he pretended to be semi-literate all the time he was clinging to his 'dead pal' story, but then became genuinely semi-literate whenever he was desperate to prove otherwise, due to one too many ales, that must have been quite a feat, not to say very frustrating for him!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thanks for this. Very informative. I think it obviously relevant that a number of respected authors interviewed Mike at a time when he was relatively sober, and all concluded that he couldn't be responsible for writing the diary.

I also wonder of Anne's "tidying up" could have extended to the handful of short magazine articles that he had published.

Personally, my favoured option is that Mike did have a role in what I firmly believe was a hoax, but that it was relatively menial, such as acting as a front man.

It's important to bear in mind that Mike had a history of making outrageous and extravagant claims about his activities, including that he was once a member of MI5. Perhaps, therefore, his ego wouldn't let him accept that, in a possible conspiracy, he was trusted with only a secondary role, and not with the most important assignment of creating the diary.