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

[Henry Flower]

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.

Wow, Caz - for someone who often accuses others of spectacularly missing the point, you exhibit here an absolute mastery of the art.

A point was made: that Keith Skinner's opinion and expertise were to be favoured over anything argued by armchair detectives because Keith Skinner has been on the inside as the saga has unfolded.

I made the following point in reply: Keith Skinner's involvement with the protagonists led him to embrace a provenance for the Diary that is - at every level - absurd and scarcely credible. Then a new idea was floated - new 'evidence' uncovered, and suddenly Keith's former position is abandoned in favour of a new provenance.

Now I think you know as well as I do that I'm not attacking anyone for changing their view in the light of new evidence: on the contrary, that should be the standard procedure for any rational adult human, if the evidence is compelling and persuasive. Keith isn't being attacked for changing his mind, and you know it. You're putting up one of your dismal straw-man arguments.

My point was, obviously, what special value does a researcher's 'inside' position grant if they can hold at one point a position that they must now - given the new position they have embraced - think was a pack of lies? Keith Skinner was an insider. He was reasonably satisfied with a story that is patently false, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that being too close to things, or to certain people, exposes one to more risk of being deliberately deceived. From the comfort of my armchair here in Keyboard Warrior HQ, the story Anne invented has never appeared anything other than ridiculous. Keith must, by implication, now agree with that, because the floorboards and the family heirloom tales are mutually exclusive.

No-one is attacking anyone for changing their mind. The point was about being inside. About not seeing the wood because you're deep in among the trees. The clarity of keeping a certain distance. I don't expect a sneering oaf like Kaz to acknowledge that, but I actually expect better than this wilful misunderstanding from you.

Maybe I shouldn't.

[DirectorDave]

Many thanks for your frank admission and honesty, DD.

I suppose if one is inclined to the belief that the diary is in Anne's handwriting [albeit consistently well disguised throughout - while not attempting to mimic JM's] it is only a short step to 'seeing' a woman's hand holding the pen.

I do think it must be terribly hard for modern hoax believers to remain totally objective, in the face of the claims made at various times by the Barretts of Goldie Street. But surely the same arguments against the diary being in JM's hand ought to be applied to Anne [and certainly Mike]. I am no handwriting expert, but should it not have been possible for someone to have noted certain points of similarity if one of the Barretts had penned it? Is it a skill anyone can pick up if they are determined to deceive? Or is it a secret skill that Anne could have possessed all along, which Mike was able to exploit, and which has protected them both from outright exposure as penman or woman?

Love,

Caz
X

Hey Caz,

No need to thank me for honesty, that's why I'm here.

I agree with pretty much all you say there, the handwriting does not resemble Mike or Anne's (I'm taking that on faith btw) and that suggest they did not do the physical writing in the same way as it does to Maybrick.

The writing looks female to me, but it is not because of any conformation bias because I think Anne wrote it, in fact even without a handwriting comparison it makes more sense to get someone slightly more removed than your wife to write it.

[Sam Flynn]

But it comes down to the same thing, Gareth: in your view Maybrick voters must have been more likely than those favouring any other suspect to cheat and vote more than once

Yes, because Maybrick is one of the few suspects who still generates a high degree of partisanship, and who still appears able to attract more than his fair share of zealots, even trolls.

If everyone could vote as many times as they liked, it would only have taken one rabid Druittist...

But since when did Druitt - or Cream, JK Stephen, James Kelly, to mention but three others - attract such rabid adherents as Maybrick? And how many popular, oft-repeated documentaries or news articles have appeared in their name?

[caz]

Not at all, Caz. The others are just as likely to have had their votes rigged as well, although some suspects have more rabid fans than others. Very often, these are the very suspects who have achieved wider coverage among non-experts thanks to books, films and documentaries. As the poll is open to the general public, a good proportion of certain suspects' votes will no doubt have been cast by people who became "instant experts" just because they happened to watch one programme on the telly.

But it comes down to the same thing, Gareth: in your view Maybrick voters must have been more likely than those favouring any other suspect to cheat and vote more than once, otherwise why did you bring multiple voting into the equation as if it helped to account for the 'most popular' result? If everyone could vote as many times as they liked, it would only have taken one rabid Druittist voting more times than anyone else to rig it in their favour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I meant handwriting, and yes I was making a sweeping generalisation with no qualifications.

Unless you have an IT question, pertaining to the Ripper I can bring no expertise to the case.

My sig is on every post caz....my opinion is all I have to offer here.

Many thanks for your frank admission and honesty, DD.

I suppose if one is inclined to the belief that the diary is in Anne's handwriting [albeit consistently well disguised throughout - while not attempting to mimic JM's] it is only a short step to 'seeing' a woman's hand holding the pen. I do think it must be terribly hard for modern hoax believers to remain totally objective, in the face of the claims made at various times by the Barretts of Goldie Street. But surely the same arguments against the diary being in JM's hand ought to be applied to Anne [and certainly Mike]. I am no handwriting expert, but should it not have been possible for someone to have noted certain points of similarity if one of the Barretts had penned it? Is it a skill anyone can pick up if they are determined to deceive? Or is it a secret skill that Anne could have possessed all along, which Mike was able to exploit, and which has protected them both from outright exposure as penman or woman?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Not at all, Caz. The others are just as likely to have had their votes rigged as well, although some suspects have more rabid fans than others. Very often, these are the very suspects who have achieved wider coverage among non-experts thanks to books, films and documentaries. As the poll is open to the general public, a good proportion of certain suspects' votes will no doubt have been cast by people who became "instant experts" just because they happened to watch one programme on the telly.

[Kaz]

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

+1

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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