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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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?

[DirectorDave]

I'll probably regret this, DD, but assuming you meant the prose style and not the handwriting [given that human hands, and the teaching of handwriting, do not differ appreciably between girls and boys], what are your qualifications for saying this? Why did/do many female authors write under male pseudonyms if there are people who can easily tell the difference?

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[caz]

We then have the alternative version. Apparently one or more electricians discovered the diary at Battlecrease and then gave it/sold it to Mike, who then promptly contacts a literary agent the same day. Of course, not a scrap of evidence is offered in support of this theory. For instance, Mike had no known connection to the electricians and, in fact, vehemently denied knowing them.

And how on earth does this scenario make sense anyway? I mean, presumably the electrician bunks off work and then somehow, on the same day, he just gives the diary to Mike, a man that he's apparently never met, despite the fact that he considers it to be so potentially valuable that he also fits in a trip to Liverpool University, with seemingly the intention of getting it valued/authenticated.

Or perhaps he just bumps into Mike in the Saddle on the night of the discovery. Mike then phones directory enquiries and says something like, "You're not going to believe this but I've just bought Jack the Ripper's diary from some stranger in the pub-poor fool had no idea what it may be worth. Of course, I've managed to fully authenticate it over a few pints...please put me through to a random literary agent."

Hilarious!

It might have been, John, if anyone had claimed this is what probably happened. All you've achieved is to invent deliberately absurd scenarios just so you can knock them down. Hilarious if you can't do any better than that.

Who has ever suggested, for instance, that Mike Barrett could have been a complete stranger to the electrician who drank in the same pub and is suspected of passing the diary on to him?

Who has ever suggested that Mike would have read through the diary in this scenario and made an effort to 'authenticate' it before making his first phone call?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The writing looks female.

I'll probably regret this, DD, but assuming you meant the prose style and not the handwriting [given that human hands, and the teaching of handwriting, do not differ appreciably between girls and boys], what are your qualifications for saying this? Why did/do many female authors write under male pseudonyms if there are people who can easily tell the difference?

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

I’m not convinced that half the contributors have even read the ‘Diary’, or other material they discuss.

The ones with the fieriest opinions and most nauseous put downs (Flower/Mike) haven't, by their own admission.

But they still see things the clearest....apparently meeting people and reading up only clouds judgement...

[Henry Flower]

So if I change ‘majority’ to ‘most popular’ in line with the wording on the poll with Maybrick in 1st place out of 22 suspects, will that suffice and keep you happy?

You mean, if you make a claim that is true, rather than one that is not? Yes, that would be good enough for me. Reminder: you made a claim which was not true.

I’m not here to partake in petty arguments, that seem as ever to be the sole purpose for some. I’m not convinced that half the contributors have even read the ‘Diary’, or other material they discuss.
I’m sure Admin have my details, and I have not referred to sarcasm as dangerous, it is still just the lowest form of wit.

Aren't you noble!? I'll take the sarcastic over the soporific any day. Your estimation of how many contributors have actually read the Diary is of course an untested, groundless (and uninteresting) supposition, to which you are welcome.

[Sam Flynn]

James Maybrick
How popular is this suspect?

Votes: 9874
Average: 8.297
Ranking: 1st of 22

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.

[Spider]

So if I change ‘majority’ to ‘most popular’ in line with the wording on the poll with Maybrick in 1st place out of 22 suspects, will that suffice and keep you happy?

I’m not here to partake in petty arguments, that seem as ever to be the sole purpose for some. I’m not convinced that half the contributors have even read the ‘Diary’, or other material they discuss.
I’m sure Admin have my details, and I have not referred to sarcasm as dangerous, it is still just the lowest form of wit.

[DirectorDave]

James Maybrick
How popular is this suspect?


Votes: 9874
Average: 8.297
Ranking: 1st of 22


When will you have something worthwhile to discuss about the case without sarcasm. The immaturity on these threads sometimes is astounding.

Right so it's pointed out to you that you don't know the definition of majority so to hide your embarrassment you change the question?

And you talk of immaturity...quite a bit of projecting going on here.