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

[caz]

Hi Caz,

thanks for your detailed and highly interesting reply. I'm now inspired to dig out the 'diary books' I have knocking about somewhere in this book-ridden dump, and have a good old re-read of them with my cocoa.

It always struck me as a massive coincidence - if indeed it really was a coincidence - that the Diary and the Watch should come to light so close to one another, time-wise. This is not to say that I believe Albert Johnson was in on it, as I always accepted your contention that he was as honest as the day's long, and also that he turned down an offer for the Watch of (IIRC) about $40000 from an American collector. (Although I have to confess that it crossed my suspicious mind that Albert could have turned down the offer in case at some future time he was accused of fraud).

The problem I have, Graham, with the watch being a 'fraud' is that usually this word is used when there is a money motive. Nobody seems to have made any money at all from the watch, least of all Albert, who lost money over it - more than it cost him in the first place. There were no book royalties for him, and he turned down the offer from Texas on the reasonable grounds that if it turned out to be a hoax it would have been wrong to make so much money out of it, while if it was proved genuine it could be priceless, and it was after all bought for his granddaughter, whose interests he'd have kept in mind.

However, just like yourself I think it would take a very long stretch of the imagination to accept that the Diary and the Watch are not linked in some way; by which I mean in relatively modern times. And it's always struck me as slightly odd that for a long time the Watch seemed to have slipped from under the gaze of those interested in the whole Diary thing. Who owns the Watch now, Caz?

The same person it was bought for back in 1992 I believe, Graham - Daisy, Albert's granddaughter.

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

I didn't say we should ignore everything he said.

I know you didn't say that, I never accused you of saying it, in fact it was me who said it.

You're saying "We can't tell if what Mike Barrett said is true"...I'm saying let's discount all of it.

What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.

Yes it's the whole "Mike Barrett couldn't write a sick note" narrative that is a total myth.

This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements.

Yes.

Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint.

Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.

Yes, but your idea of a conspiracy is a nest of forgers, mine is Mike, Ann and a couple of friends or family members.

As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.

Yep, we've done this to death really, back to "couldn't write a sick note"...fine Ann tidied up his articles, maybe even changed a few words or took a bit out, she is definitely part of any conspiracy so fine, so what?

What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.

Back to "Sick note"....and this has been done to death too, who met him before his stroke?

Faked a stroke? Fine then he is deliberately trying to appear less competent than he was....and we all go around the Maybrickaround again.

[John G]

Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?



I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.



OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

The simple facts are damning.

I didn't say we should ignore everything he said. What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.

This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements. Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint. Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.

As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.

What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.

[DirectorDave]

On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.

Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?

But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?

I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.

Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?

OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

The simple facts are damning.

[John G]

What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.

On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.

But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?

Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?

[John Wheat]

What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.

Interesting thoughts Dave. Agreed Mike Barrett was full of bull.

[rjpalmer]

Before my grammar guardian scolds me, Johnson's=Johnsons.

[rjpalmer]

I always accepted your contention that he was as honest as the day's long, and also that he turned down an offer for the Watch of (IIRC) about $40000 from an American collector.

Graham, you might bear in mind that Johnson was encouraged not to sell the watch to the Texas collector, Robert E. Davis.

Robert Smith to Doreen Montgomery, January 20, 1994 (quoted in Ripper Diary pg. 79) "Pecuniary benefit doesn't come into it. Far from it. It may cost a lot to keep the watch accessible. I believe the watch is very important to "our mutual property", and we should think of ways to encourage the Johnsons not to sell it at too early a stage."

The date of this letter is very close to the date that the Johnson's (let's not forget Robbie!) were trying to sell the watch to Davis. Smith was worried that the 'Diary team' would lose access, and, perhaps, that it would look pretty bad if the Johnson's grabbed £30,000 and split. In the end, the Johnson's agreed to accept £3,000 for the rights of Smith to use it in the Harrison book.

Which is fine. Nothing illegal. Good business on Smith's part, perhaps.

But if you encourage, plead, beg, and implore someone not to sell something, and they finally agree, it sure seems a little cheesy to come back later and use it as evidence of the man's honesty. At least to me, it does.

In point of fact, Robbie Johnson was shown to have told two undeniable lies about the watch. When first showing it to Feldman he tried to peddle a story that it had been in the Johnson family for years. Which rather makes him the Anne Graham of the watch. (See Richard Whittington-Egan's book). The second lie was caught-out by Feldman himself. Robbie was playing dumb about the nature of the scratches, apparently momentarily forgetting that he had already given Feldy a complete diagram of them! (See the Final Chapter). If Johnson is on the up and up, why is he lying?

[DirectorDave]

Thanks Dave, it does seem the diary is most likely fake. But I guess the question is if Mike Barrett was the forger?

What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.

[Graham]

Hi again Caz,

I was fully expecting her to be as interested as I was in its origins, but she just looked rather uncomfortable and made some excuse to hurry off, as if she was worried I was going to engage the three of them in conversation about it. I was left thinking that something wasn't right, but didn't have a clue what it was.

This has got my over-fertile imagination working overtime.......

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

thanks for your detailed and highly interesting reply. I'm now inspired to dig out the 'diary books' I have knocking about somewhere in this book-ridden dump, and have a good old re-read of them with my cocoa.

It always struck me as a massive coincidence - if indeed it really was a coincidence - that the Diary and the Watch should come to light so close to one another, time-wise. This is not to say that I believe Albert Johnson was in on it, as I always accepted your contention that he was as honest as the day's long, and also that he turned down an offer for the Watch of (IIRC) about $40000 from an American collector. (Although I have to confess that it crossed my suspicious mind that Albert could have turned down the offer in case at some future time he was accused of fraud).

However, just like yourself I think it would take a very long stretch of the imagination to accept that the Diary and the Watch are not linked in some way; by which I mean in relatively modern times. And it's always struck me as slightly odd that for a long time the Watch seemed to have slipped from under the gaze of those interested in the whole Diary thing. Who owns the Watch now, Caz?

Graham

[AmericanSherlock]

Morning AS,

I'm not sure anyone would think I was ever 'forced' into giving my opinions , but yes, I have always said I can't get past the handwriting not resembling Maybrick's. But then if no attempt was made in that direction, I have to question whether it would count as a 'forgery' in the usual sense. It seems to me to have been written more with the object of poking fun at "Sir Jim" and his immediate family members, than of seriously putting him in the frame for the ripper murders.



Some are certain; I am not. But I tend to get the 'crackpot' label for not accepting the unreliable claims of a compulsive liar and fantasist, which Mike clearly was.



I think there is a very strong possibility that the text wasn't created as recently as the early 1990s, and almost no chance at all that Mike or Anne were engaged in handwriting it between April 1st and April 12th 1992, unlike others here, who see it as the only possible explanation for Mike acquiring the little red 1891 diary at the end of March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for the detailed and informative reply.

In the case he did not write the diary, then must be that Mike acquired the diary as part of his plot to erroneously come forward as the forger (whatever his motivation may be)? I agree with you that he could have had a few, including being an insane fantasist, despite how admitting to being a forger would seem to be self compromising to many (especially if you weren't actually 1!)

This is very interesting stuff, perhaps more so than the actual JTR Murders , which I suspect were done by an unremarkable and perhaps unheard of garden variety madman/sexual deviant/sadistic murderer who happened to get quite lucky.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Caz.

[caz]

Was it Albert or one of his colleagues who first noticed the inscriptions? I can't remember offhand.

Hi Gareth,

Albert was showing his colleagues how to open the back and front of the watch, when the light from the window highlighted some scratches inside the back. He said he hadn't noticed them before. They took it to the college lab, where a technician looked at it under a microscope, at which point some inscriptions were found, which meant nothing to them at the time.

Later that day, a colleague, John White, said he had read about Maybrick and a diary in the Liverpool Echo, but mistakenly told Albert that Maybrick had buried his wife and two kids under the floorboards. He did, however, mention the ripper connection, so Albert went straight back to the lab, where a more powerful microscope was found and the remaining initials became apparent. Albert failed to find a book on Maybrick in the library, but found one on JtR and was able to match the initials to his victims. He then did some digging and was told it was the Liverpool Post where John White would have seen the article. Albert finally found it in the archives section of the newspaper office, and got Robert Smith's name from the Posts's Harold Brough, who had worked on the breaking diary story.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thank you Caz.

If I have things straight, you are saying that the book was supposed to be an impartial, entertaining history of the diary and not an attempt to pass judgement on its authenticity or lack thereof. And that opinion on the subject even varied among you and your co-authors.

However, if forced to give an opinion, your personal opinion is actually more towards a forgery.

Morning AS,

I'm not sure anyone would think I was ever 'forced' into giving my opinions , but yes, I have always said I can't get past the handwriting not resembling Maybrick's. But then if no attempt was made in that direction, I have to question whether it would count as a 'forgery' in the usual sense. It seems to me to have been written more with the object of poking fun at "Sir Jim" and his immediate family members, than of seriously putting him in the frame for the ripper murders.

But you don't think the drunk Mike Barrett who claimed to have forged it in the early 90s was the actual forger, while others here are certain of it.

Some are certain; I am not. But I tend to get the 'crackpot' label for not accepting the unreliable claims of a compulsive liar and fantasist, which Mike clearly was.

How does the debate about colloquialisms fit in? Do you think there is a strong possibility it was forged by a contemporary in Victorian times?

I think there is a very strong possibility that the text wasn't created as recently as the early 1990s, and almost no chance at all that Mike or Anne were engaged in handwriting it between April 1st and April 12th 1992, unlike others here, who see it as the only possible explanation for Mike acquiring the little red 1891 diary at the end of March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X