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

[caz]

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.

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

[caz]

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.

Hi Observer,

I thought anyone could call themselves a 'freelance' anything, without necessarily obtaining any regular paid work. But yes, of course everything submitted in Mike's name would need to have been of a good standard before accepted for publication, which is why, according to both Barretts, Anne had to step in and tidy up his celebrity interview articles. In fact, when Martin Fido saw the standard of Anne's research and written work, in a report she wrote for Shirley Harrison, he was 'flabbergasted' that she was not a professional researcher, and surprised that she would ever have 'let such a badly researched and misspelled document [as he described the diary] go out'.

If Anne was able to tidy up Mike's articles to a professional standard, it does rather beg the question 'what happened?' if she is also meant to have worked on the diary text and done her best to make JM come across as well educated and also well enough informed to have committed the murders.

Mind you, I have always felt the author was dumbing down to create the low, brutish character as portrayed in the diary, and therefore wasn't aiming for a carbon copy of the real JM or his handwriting, and certainly never intended for him to be a master of poetry or prose in his personal journal, along with all the murder and mutilation. Now that would have been fatal to any desire to have the diary taken seriously. Yet it seems to be condemned on those very grounds in some quarters, as if any hoaxer worth their salt should have written it to degree standard!

Love,

Caz
X

[Admin]

We have received report posts of personal attacks from this thread. Stop it. Since it is not limited to a single person and this thread seems poised to descend into personal sniping matches, the next person who indulges their spleen by engaging in a personal attack will get a one month vacation from the boards. Thank you.

Ps this admonition carries through all diary threads.

[John Wheat]

Maybe if you didn't scoff and sneer yourself there'd be more of us contributing to the discussion?... you're disrespectful my ole flower!

Playing tag team with John...classy stuff.

But your contribution is largely non existent. Where is your evidence that Mike didn't fabricate the diary?

[Henry Flower]

Maybe if you didn't scoff and sneer yourself there'd be more of us contributing to the discussion?... you're disrespectful my ole flower!

Playing tag team with John...classy stuff.

I don't care what you think.

[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 (again!),

Just to expand on my previous post. I've just been re-familiarizing myself with Shirley's book-I must confess I haven't read it for a number of years-and it is, of course, revealed that Anne tidied up Mike's newspaper articles.

[Kaz]

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?

Maybe if you didn't scoff and sneer yourself there'd be more of us contributing to the discussion?... you're disrespectful my ole flower!

Playing tag team with John...classy stuff.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!