One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Do most diaries not have evidence of the year on every major page? Isn't that kind of the point of a diary?

[StevenOwl]

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

How about this; perhaps MB felt a little reticent about handing over the diary to someone he didn't know he could trust, and so he planned to make a copy of it which would pass any initial cursory visual examination as a genuine late-Victorian artefact, but he wasn't happy with the results and eventually decided to present the actual diary to Doreen Montgomery.

[Iconoclast]

How about this; perhaps MB felt a little reticent about handing over the diary to someone he didn't know he could trust, and so he planned to make a copy of it which would pass any initial cursory visual examination as a genuine late-Victorian artefact, but he wasn't happy with the results and eventually decided to present the actual diary to Doreen Montgomery.

Hi Steve,

There has indeed been the suggestion that Barrett wanted to make a copy of the journal because he feared taking the original to London (for pretty good reason - to draw a parallel, it would be better to take a chequebook on a train than a suitcase full of money).

If he took an 1890 or 1891 journal, though, he may as well have taken a WH Smith A4 refill pad because neither would have passed muster as a possible journal of James Maybrick so the question does remain that the purchase of an 1891 diary makes no sense except in the context that he wanted to know what one looked like. Again, though, you question why that would make any odds given that what he had in his hands was quite clearly not a diary in the first place.

Anyway, your suggestion was a good one, and - guessing how Barrett's mind worked - may well have been the truth of the matter.

Ike

[StevenOwl]

Hi Steve,

There has indeed been the suggestion that Barrett wanted to make a copy of the journal because he feared taking the original to London (for pretty good reason - to draw a parallel, it would be better to take a chequebook on a train than a suitcase full of money).

If he took an 1890 or 1891 journal, though, he may as well have taken a WH Smith A4 refill pad because neither would have passed muster as a possible journal of James Maybrick so the question does remain that the purchase of an 1891 diary makes no sense except in the context that he wanted to know what one looked like. Again, though, you question why that would make any odds given that what he had in his hands was quite clearly not a diary in the first place.

Anyway, your suggestion was a good one, and - guessing how Barrett's mind worked - may well have been the truth of the matter.

Ike

Morning Ike,
I think for me, I find it easier to believe that certain elements of MB's confession are true, but the most important bits aren't. So he did place the ad, he did purchase the 1891 diary (perhaps in the absence of one from the exact period he wanted), he did soak it in linseed etc, he did dictate it to Anne, however he was reading the text of the real diary when he did so, rather than concocting it himself.

Having never met MB I tend to go along with the opinion of those who did meet him, and who believe there is simply no way that MB was capable of writing the diary, nor was he the kind of person you would choose to front a deception by forgery. It does, however, sound like he might have been capable of the scenario I suggest above.

[drstrange169]

>>Do most diaries not have evidence of the year on every major page? Isn't that kind of the point of a diary?<<

No.

[drstrange169]

Whoops, premature pressing ...

Modern diaries, yes, Victorian, not usually.

[Iconoclast]

Morning Ike,
I think for me, I find it easier to believe that certain elements of MB's confession are true, but the most important bits aren't. So he did place the ad, he did purchase the 1891 diary (perhaps in the absence of one from the exact period he wanted), he did soak it in linseed etc, he did dictate it to Anne, however he was reading the text of the real diary when he did so, rather than concocting it himself.

Having never met MB I tend to go along with the opinion of those who did meet him, and who believe there is simply no way that MB was capable of writing the diary, nor was he the kind of person you would choose to front a deception by forgery. It does, however, sound like he might have been capable of the scenario I suggest above.

Hi Steve,

It is of course only my opinion too but for the record I concur with you.

The reality is that Barrett could have forged the journal, or he could have been the extraordinarily strange choice for a front man for the forgery, or he could have found it and - whether he knew it or not - it could have been an old, not so old, or quite modern forgery. We have to consider all of these possibilities.

And crucially - though so few do - we have to keep an eye on the possibility that the journal is authentic.

None of the scenarios above has been even remotely categorically proven so we should neither dismiss the journal nor blindly support it (though sometimes I have found myself attempting to do the latter in order for its voice to be heard above the noise).

Like it or not, the journal has much to commend it. I personally believe that it has much to commend it and very little to condemn it, so I believe firmly that it is authentic. But that is just what my brain tells me. Until it can be proven so, it will remain a belief.

Ike

[StevenOwl]

Hi Steve,

It is of course only my opinion too but for the record I concur with you.

The reality is that Barrett could have forged the journal, or he could have been the extraordinarily strange choice for a front man for the forgery, or he could have found it and - whether he knew it or not - it could have been an old, not so old, or quite modern forgery. We have to consider all of these possibilities.

And crucially - though so few do - we have to keep an eye on the possibility that the journal is authentic.

None of the scenarios above has been even remotely categorically proven so we should neither dismiss the journal nor blindly support it (though sometimes I have found myself attempting to do the latter in order for its voice to be heard above the noise).

Like it or not, the journal has much to commend it. I personally believe that it has much to commend it and very little to condemn it, so I believe firmly that it is authentic. But that is just what my brain tells me. Until it can be proven so, it will remain a belief.

Ike

I re-watched the diary documentary at the weekend, and the bit where MB is saying he didn't believe that Tony Devereux was capable of forging it, and if that was the case where on earth did he get it from. To me, that is not a man acting - I believe Barrett is being completely honest and genuine in all of the interview footage in the doc. Again though, just my opinion. Frustrating though it is, I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the full story behind the diary. Even if the Battlecrease provenance does see the light of day at some point, I suspect that it'll be nothing more than another cat being thrown among the pigeons!

[Iconoclast]

I re-watched the diary documentary at the weekend, and the bit where MB is saying he didn't believe that Tony Devereux was capable of forging it, and if that was the case where on earth did he get it from. To me, that is not a man acting - I believe Barrett is being completely honest and genuine in all of the interview footage in the doc. Again though, just my opinion. Frustrating though it is, I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of the full story behind the diary. Even if the Battlecrease provenance does see the light of day at some point, I suspect that it'll be nothing more than another cat being thrown among the pigeons!

Yes, the biggest disaster that ever hit the journal was the moment it found its way into Mike Barrett's hands.

I agree with you about MIke's 'sincerity'. It is - in my opinion - transparent, and it certainly fools the Ripperologists on the panel (with the likely exception of Martin Fido). Barrett's 'forgery' claims came at the wrong time for him personally - he declared his genius when he was under huge emotional pressure (the break-up of his marriage and exclusion from his daughter) and under the influence of the water of life. Not the best platform to build a credible argument from, I'd say.

I haven't given up belief. I genuinely feel that the journal is authentic and I hope that something will be established to finally prve it beyond reasonable doubt.

Cheers,

Ike

[StevenOwl]

Yes, the biggest disaster that ever hit the journal was the moment it found its way into Mike Barrett's hands.

I agree with you about MIke's 'sincerity'. It is - in my opinion - transparent, and it certainly fools the Ripperologists on the panel (with the likely exception of Martin Fido). Barrett's 'forgery' claims came at the wrong time for him personally - he declared his genius when he was under huge emotional pressure (the break-up of his marriage and exclusion from his daughter) and under the influence of the water of life. Not the best platform to build a credible argument from, I'd say.

I haven't given up belief. I genuinely feel that the journal is authentic and I hope that something will be established to finally prve it beyond reasonable doubt.

Cheers,

Ike

I do love Fido's dismissal of Barrett's story!

I'm with you, I'd love it to be proven beyond all doubt, but I just don't know how that could happen. If Anne Graham could prove her story was true it would only place the diary in the right place at the right time - still doesn't make Maybrick guilty. Same goes for any Battlecrease provenance. A new discovery of Maybrick's informal handwriting which matched the diary exactly would surely only see detractors conceding it was a work of fantasy by Sir Jim. What could possibly come to light to prove beyond doubt that it was Maybrick's journal, and that he was Jack? I just can't see it ever happening. We can live in hope though...

[pinkmoon]

mike barretts hands

Mike barrett did not write the diary but he certainly was in the room.when it was written

[StevenOwl]

Mike barrett did not write the diary but he certainly was in the room.when it was written

I thought you were of the mind that it was highly unlikely that MB was involved in any way in the forgery of the diary?

[pinkmoon]

I thought you were of the mind that it was highly unlikely that MB was involved in any way in the forgery of the diary?

He didnt write it but he and his wife certainly knew who did.

[StevenOwl]

He didnt write it but he and his wife certainly knew who did.

So you have an incontrovertbile fact which refutes the diary? I'm intrigued...

[Iconoclast]

Whoops, premature pressing ...

Modern diaries, yes, Victorian, not usually.

But would Mike Barrett have known that?

Actually, there are diaries today without the year on each page. Are you sure that what you posted isn't just a Victorian example of one which does not?