One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Not odd. Not a conspiracy. There's hundreds of people read these posts, every one of them is welcome to respond or not respond whenever it suits them.

I certainly don't think there is a conspiracy going on here. Odd that you even mention such a thing! My suspicion is that you probably can't support the statement that Barrett's statement is "fundamentally incorrect in every respect", even if you personally think it's all a big lie. It might have been better to have said "incorrect in a number of material respects".

[Iconoclast]

Further, Barrett says in the affidavit that, prior to obtaining the O&L diary, "Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for £25.00". My understanding is that documentary evidence shows that the red diary was not obtained by Barrett until 26 March 1992. If Barrett did not visit O&L until after 26 March 1992 then that would explain why O&L couldn't find the diary in their records wouldn't it?

Okay. Not sure why you didn't look this up for yourself, but here is one incontrovertible fact which I have looked up for you. Barrett claimed (as you note) that the red leather diary was purchased first but Barrett decided it was too small to be of use [Linder et alia]. (As as small aside here, I can't help but add that a version of Jack the Ripper's crimes written into an 1891 diary would probably have been seen through reasonably quickly.) Anne Graham angrily paid for the red leather diary which Michael Barrett had ordered, and she did so on May 18, 1992 - one month after Barrett had taken the journal to Doreen Montgomery. Barrett had - deliberately or otherwise - deeply confused the facts.

Harrison II will be a useful one for you and anyone else seeking more errors in the Barrrett confession. I'm going to my bed now and I've a busy week ahead so bear with me if I am not swift to respond to further posts.

PS If you feel that my choice of words would make my argument stronger if they were "incorrect in a number of material respects", then so be it. In truth, you may be right. But in truth, I can't help wondering if my semantic versillimiltude or otherwise is really the point here.

[David Orsam]

Okay. Not sure why you didn't look this up for yourself, but here is one incontrovertible fact which I have looked up for you. Barrett claimed (as you note) that the red leather diary was purchased first but Barrett decided it was too small to be of use [Linder et alia]. (As as small aside here, I can't help but add that a version of Jack the Ripper's crimes written into an 1891 diary would probably have been seen through reasonably quickly.) Anne Graham angrily paid for the red leather diary which Michael Barrett had ordered, and she did so on May 18, 1992 - one month after Barrett had taken the journal to Doreen Montgomery. Barrett had - deliberately or otherwise - deeply confused the facts.

Harrison II will be a useful one for you and anyone else seeking more errors in the Barrrett confession. I'm going to my bed now and I've a busy week ahead so bear with me if I am not swift to respond to further posts.

Can I ask what your source is for the date of 18 May 1992? Is that just the date of payment? My understanding is that the red diary was sent to Barrett on 26 March 1992 which would have given him time to reject it and purchase the journal from O&L, then write the diary before it was provided to Doreen Montgomery on 13 April 1992.

[David Orsam]

PS If you feel that my choice of words would make my argument stronger if they were "incorrect in a number of material respects", then so be it. In truth, you may be right. But in truth, I can't help wondering if my semantic versillimiltude or otherwise is really the point here.

It certainly is the point because it was only as a result of you saying that Barrett's account was incorrect in every respect that caused me to reply to you in the way I did. A less categorical statement would have produced a different response.

[Iconoclast]

It certainly is the point because it was only as a result of you saying that Barrett's account was incorrect in every respect that caused me to reply to you in the way I did. A less categorical statement would have produced a different response.

My source last night for May 18, 1992 was Linder et alia. It's covered in Harrison and undoubtedly Feldman too. The purchase date was May 18, 1992. If the acquisition date was two months earlier, that's one generous retailer?

I'm sensing that you and I are not likely to have an amicable exchange on this theme (your tone in response to every one of my recent posts smacks of a generalised hostility). These things have a habit of escalating so rather than incur the wrath of Admin, let's leave it there, eh?

"Ike"

[Observer]

It certainly is the point because it was only as a result of you saying that Barrett's account was incorrect in every respect that caused me to reply to you in the way I did. A less categorical statement would have produced a different response.

Hi David

Regarding Barret's affidavit, considering the content, in my opinion, it's either mostly a lie, or it's mostly true, I don't think there's room for a middle ground. It's very detailed. If it is a lie, then it's proof that the man had a very vivid imagination. Such an imagination in fact whereby constructing a hoax in the form of the "Maybrick Diary" would be a doddle to him.

Observer

[David Orsam]

If it is a lie, then it's proof that the man had a very vivid imagination. Such an imagination in fact whereby constructing a hoax in the form of the "Maybrick Diary" would be a doddle to him.

I can only admire the logic of your argument whereby if Barrett's affidavit is true then he forged the diary while if it is all a lie it means that he must have forged the diary. I rather doubt that Iconoclast will accept it but a good effort nevertheless!

[Observer]

As I typed I fully expected such criticism David, and it's fair comment. However, the affidavit could well be a figment of his imagination, yet he still concocted the Diary. I have more to say on this matter anon.

[David Orsam]

My source last night for May 18, 1992 was Linder et alia. It's covered in Harrison and undoubtedly Feldman too. The purchase date was May 18, 1992. If the acquisition date was two months earlier, that's one generous retailer?

I'm sensing that you and I are not likely to have an amicable exchange on this theme (your tone in response to every one of my recent posts smacks of a generalised hostility). These things have a habit of escalating so rather than incur the wrath of Admin, let's leave it there, eh?

I can assure you that the "generalised hostility" that you are sensing in my posts is entirely in your imagination and does not exist in those posts. That being so, there is absolutely no reason for our exchange to incur the wrath of Admin or for us to abandon the discussion.

Let us therefore continue...

I do note that Linder et al state that a cheque written by Anne Graham to HP Bookbinders was dated 18 May 1992. However, it seems that she did indeed pay for the red diary two months after purchase.

See page 237 of Linder et al:

"However, the 1891 diary was duly located [by HP Bookfinders] and sent to Barrett's home address on 26 March 1992, reaching him, presumably, by Saturday 28 March 1992".

On that basis, I'm sure you will agree that the purchase of the red diary is not an incontrovertible fact which refutes Barrett's affidavit.

[Iconoclast]

On that basis, I'm sure you will agree that the purchase of the red diary is not an incontrovertible fact which refutes Barrett's affidavit.

Okay, as we are resolved to be amicable ...

In the light of what you quote, evidently this does appear to be the case.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Okay, as we are resolved to be amicable ...

In the light of what you quote, evidently this does appear to be the case.

Thank you Iconoclast.

I guess that is pretty much the discussion over...except to point out, as mentioned earlier in this thread (by Chris), that Mike Barrett placed an advertisement in a trade magazine dated 19 March 1992 in which he requested:

'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages.'

Looking at the earlier discussion about this, I don't see any convincing explanation as to why Barrett wanted a diary with at least 20 blank pages.

If we look at the chronology of events in light of this advertisement we see the following:

9 March 1992 - Barrett (using the name 'Williams') contacts Doreen Montgomery to find out if she would be interested in "Jack the Ripper's Diary".

19 March 1992 - Barrett's advertisement requesting a diary dating from 1880-1890 containing at least blank 20 pages appears in trade mag.

26 March 1992 - A red 1891 diary is acquired by Barrett (and probably received by him 2 days later).

[N.B. Barrett says in his affidavit that it took 11 days to create the Diary]

13 April 1992 - After an unexplained delay, Barrett finally presents the Diary to Doreen Montgomery.

Those are the known facts and a curious story they tell. If Barrett went to an O&L auction on or about 28 March 1992 to purchase a scrapbook it would be even curiouser.

[Pcdunn]

The timeline is interesting, but I thought the "red diary" was not the one the Maybrick Diary was actually written in?

[David Orsam]

The timeline is interesting, but I thought the "red diary" was not the one the Maybrick Diary was actually written in?

No, that is absolutely correct. But Barrett says in his affidavit that when the the red diary arrived in the post he decided it was of no use, being too small. So, he says, he went to the auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland to purchase a scrapbook.

In his affidavit he dates this to January 1990 (but he also dated the purchase of the red diary to the same period). If he got his dates all wrong but the basic chronology right then it is interesting to consider that he might have purchased the scrapbook from O&L either on or shortly after 28 March 1992.

Given that he says in his affidavit that it took 11 days for him and Anne to write the diary (which is interesting in itself because he could have said it took him three months, or six months etc., to do it) this leaves sufficient time, on his own account, for him to have created the diary in order to be able to present it to Doreen on 13 April.

Like I said, just a curious sequence of known events into which we can weave a little speculation.

[Iconoclast]

Like I said, just a curious sequence of known events into which we can weave a little speculation.

So your chronology is interesting, but you obviously have to have noticed the rather glaring idiosyncrasy in his purchase?

What on earth was he planning to do with an 1891 diary?

PS And what would he have done with an 1890 one, with or without the 20 blank pages?

Okay - let me suggest something here: Do you think he originally thought to write a retrospective confession, but when he homed in on Maybrick he realised that his purchase was unusable?

[David Orsam]

So your chronology is interesting, but you obviously have to have noticed the rather glaring idiosyncrasy in his purchase?

What on earth was he planning to do with an 1891 diary?

PS And what would he have done with an 1890 one, with or without the 20 pages torn out?

What was he planning to do with an 1890 or 1891 diary? How about remove all traces that it belonged to 1890 or 1891 (if possible) in order to ensure that the diary was written on paper that belonged to the correct period.