One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Hi Abby,

Very briefly - and of course I am still waiting to be proved wrong - it's more to do with the dismal state of the evidence for a modern forger (or 'nest' of forgers).

Love,

Caz
X

If not a modern forgery, Caz, that leaves:

• Old forgery
• Genuine article

Why do you favour the former over the latter?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

From the excerpts I've read of the diary, it seems that the diarist goes out of his way to intentionally disclose information that was perhaps not common knowledge. If the diary was not meant for a broader audience (as diaries typically aren't), why would they do that?

I don't think the journal - after 24 years - is going to stumble so easily, Harry D.

What uncommon knowledge information are you thinking about that you find so difficult to believe someone writing for their own eyes and their own recall would log?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I appreciate that you were writing here in the Dark Ages of 2003, but I cannot help but add some commentary 13 years later ...

Here's a list of deficits that the Diary possesses. Feel free to suggest others I have not included.

1. Not in James Maybrick's handwriting. Not in James Maybrick's formal hand, though this was clearly not for public consumption. Unntil we have an example of his informal hand, this is not the dealbreaker the Urban Myth Boys love so much.

2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty"). Unequivocally surprising whether a forgery or not. Both entries were written in a bulletpoint style so one can imagine that that would lead to a similar use of the expression, but truly unlikely nevertheless. Not a dealbreaker, as 24 years have shown, but a very uncomfortable one for pro-journalists.

3. Gets placement of body parts in 13 Miller's Court wrong. I think we've covered this many times since 2003. If he had been calmly painting her room magnolia, I'd accept this - but as he was painting it in gore, I can comfortably accept that he misremembered having been guided to misremember by the errors of some contemporary newspapers.

4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden." Let's be clear here, the 'Muck Midden' was the colloquial name for what would eventually be formally known as The Poste House. There is no evidence of its actual name in 1888, though it was of course formally called The Wrexham House in 1882. There are lots of places which are known by local, affectionate names, and it would not surprise me if eventually some of them end up being formally called by what was their pet name.

5. Gets the claim to fame of Michael Maybrick, the Diarist's brother, wrong--he's a composer not a lyricist. This is exactly why the anti-journalists should be wary of being too dogmatic. The brilliant Livia Trivia long since unmasked this urban myth for what it was.

6. Not written in a diary but in an old photograph album or scrapbook. And your point, caller?

7. Sixty three pages crudely cut out of the front of the book. Ditto

8. Has no provenance and cannot be proven to ever have been in the possession of James Maybrick. But it does, Chris. Why would you say it doesn't, even in the Dark Ages of 2003? Fair enough, there is no evidence it was ever in Maybrick's possession - clearly that cuts both ways, of course.

9. Emulates the bantering style of the Jack the Ripper letters in terms of taunting the police but does not use the name "Jack the Ripper" until the final page when the writer signs the document "Yours truly Jack the Ripper" the same way the Dear Boss letter of 25 September 1888 is signed. And is written in the very hand which wrote the September 17 letter which was the first to be signed 'JtR'. Tempus Omnia Revelat's work is worth considering here.

10. Despite there being evidently missing pages in the beginning of the book, the story appears whole, beginning with Maybrick planning his murder spree and ending with his death. One can easily imagine that the pages removed were removed for a reason and that reason did not include cutting off the start of his murderous story.

11. Contains no new information about the Ripper case or about the Maybrick family, with the possible exception of details about two possible Manchester murders and a Liverpool neighbor named Mrs. Hammersmith. Oh dear.

Is it any wonder that most of us are skeptical of the story told by Anne Graham that the artifact has been in her family since the 1950's when the indications appear to be that it is likely more recent? You are welcome to your scepticism - indeed, it is very healthy to have it. What is key is not to be overly convinced by it but rather keep an open mind on what is possible (if perhaps occasionally implausible).

All the best

Chris

And all the best to you, sir, so many years later!

[Iconoclast]

Can I ask you this Caz. Why do you say that someone needed to have Barrett as a "front man"? Couldn't he have forged it himself with his wife as he said he did? And, if he did, can't the whole thing already be said to have "unravelled"?

Hi David,

Of course Mike and Anne Barrett could have forged the journal and - "if he did" - then clearly the whole thing has already unravelled.

But here's the rather obvious problem, he only said that he did. We have no way of demonstrating catergorically that he did or he didn't write the journal.

Most people - on both sides of the journal camps - seem profoundly convinced that Mike Barrett lacked the creative juices to pen such a clever artefact; but equally most have also acknowledged that Anne has shown a remarkable propensity with the written word.

What is fundamental in all this is Anne Barrett is key to this whole mystery, not Mike. If she stayed quiet for over a year and then built on a lie she must have first initiated with Mike, she is a criminal genius. If she genuinely had the journal and could pinpoint it in her family right back to something like 1942, then her actions in 1991 solved the crime.

What is fascinating is that - in the entire world - Anne Barrett is the only person who knows for certain which of these scenarios is true.

Curiouser and curiouser, but we get no closer.

Cheers,

Ike

[Graham]

What is fascinating is that - in the entire world - Anne Barrett is the only person who knows for certain which of these scenarios is true.

I'm not sure of that... people other than Anne and Mike had their hands on The Damned Thing (with a nod to Ambrose Bierce) in the years prior to its 'discovery'. In my honest opinion neither Anne nor Mike Barrett could have written or composed it, not in a thousand years......but someone did.

The 'Graham' provenance is found only in Paul Feldman, nowhere else. Not for a moment do I accept it came down to us via Anne's father, hidden behind a bedroom cabinet for God knows how long. Absolutely the least convincing part of Feldman's is his 'interview' with Billy Graham, which proves - nothing. On the other hand, the most suggestive part of his tale is when he talks about 'something' being found at Battlecrease and being taken for further investigation to Liverpool University...and Feldman says just about nothing more concerning that. Ever since my first reading of Feldman's book I have thought that there was much more to this than meets the eye....yet after his very first mention of this, he doesn't refer to it again.


Graham

[David Orsam]

In my honest opinion neither Anne nor Mike Barrett could have written or composed it, not in a thousand years......

Can I ask why not?

[Phil Carter]

The Diary contains the words "one tin matchbox empty" which matches the police list of Eddowes' possessions that was published in Martin Fido's 1988 book. A highly suspicious and unnatural phrase.

Here I paste in a post of mine from 2003 (http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/7839.html) --

Hi, all--

Here's a list of deficits that the Diary possesses. Feel free to suggest others I have not included.

1. Not in James Maybrick's handwriting.

2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty").

3. Gets placement of body parts in 13 Miller's Court wrong.

4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden."

5. Gets the claim to fame of Michael Maybrick, the Diarist's brother, wrong--he's a composer not a lyricist.

6. Not written in a diary but in an old photograph album or scrapbook.

7. Sixty three pages crudely cut out of the front of the book.

8. Has no provenance and cannot be proven to ever have been in the possession of James Maybrick.

9. Emulates the bantering style of the Jack the Ripper letters in terms of taunting the police but does not use the name "Jack the Ripper" until the final page when the writer signs the document "Yours truly Jack the Ripper" the same way the Dear Boss letter of 25 September 1888 is signed.

10. Despite there being evidently missing pages in the beginning of the book, the story appears whole, beginning with Maybrick planning his murder spree and ending with his death.

11. Contains no new information about the Ripper case or about the Maybrick family, with the possible exception of details about two possible Manchester murders and a Liverpool neighbor named Mrs. Hammersmith.

Given this list of dud notes rung by the Diary, and there may be more, but particularly points 2 and 4 above,

2. Contains wording identical to a police list only made public in 1988 ("One tin matchbox empty").

4. Says that Diarist took refreshment in the Poste House, a Liverpool pub not called by that name in 1888, and not known as "The Poste House" until recent decades, it having been previously known as "The Muck Midden.",

Is it any wonder that most of us are skeptical of the story told by Anne Graham that the artifact has been in her family since the 1950's when the indications appear to be that it is likely more recent?

All the best

Chris

*****************

PS Caz and others believe that the Poste House in Cumberland Street was not meant as Shirley Harrison thought "Maybrick" meant when she wrote The Diary of Jack the Ripper (1993). Rather Caz says The Old Post Office pub in School Lane was meant close to James Maybrick's Liverpool birthplace (see http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=4661). The point about the Poste House in Cumberland Street though is that it was considerably closer to Maybrick's office near the Exchange behind Liverpool Town Hall, and so within easy walking distance, which the Old Post Office pub was not. A modern forger could have made the mistake of thinking the Cumberland Street establishment was named "Poste Office" pub in 1888, because it sounds old. That is exactly what I think happened.

Poste House pub, Cumberland Street, Liverpool - on the right in the black and white photo above the lady on the left in the black coat.

Hello Chris,

I very much agree with nearly everything you write here. Hope all is well with you and yours?


Phil

[John Wheat]

The diary is a FORGERY

[Iconoclast]

The diary is a FORGERY

The diary is not a FORGERY

[John Wheat]

The diary is not a FORGERY

Prove it.

[caz]

Hi Caroline,

By 'gag', I meant (or was guessing) that there could have been attempts (by whom I don't know) to hush up talk of the diary origins due to the recent death of Mike Barrett.

Hi Scotty,

I guessed what you meant, but nobody has tried to hush me up as a result of Mike Barrett's death.

For what it's worth, I would be only too happy if anyone alive who knows how Mike really acquired the diary were to come forward and admit it, preferably with supporting evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Can I ask you this Caz. Why do you say that someone needed to have Barrett as a "front man"? Couldn't he have forged it himself with his wife as he said he did? And, if he did, can't the whole thing already be said to have "unravelled"?

Hi David,

In a nutshell, no. My opinion of course, but I agree with Melvin Harris in this regard. Neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary, and Mike simply didn't have the 'capacity', as Melvin so eloquently put it. He did see Mike as the front man - who handled and marketed the diary with Anne's co-operation.

There is no doubt that Mike saw the diary as his baby, and was the driving force behind going public with it, but that doesn't make it a modern creation, or one created with Mike's knowledge or help.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz...

...I'm just happy to say that the truth will come out in the relatively near future. 😉

Sounds like you know something I don't, Phil. Care to share?

While I would love you to be right, it pays to be careful what you wish for. And I doubt the truth is as you wish it to be.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

PS Caz and others believe that the Poste House in Cumberland Street was not meant as Shirley Harrison thought "Maybrick" meant when she wrote The Diary of Jack the Ripper (1993). Rather Caz says The Old Post Office pub in School Lane was meant close to James Maybrick's Liverpool birthplace (see http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=4661). The point about the Poste House in Cumberland Street though is that it was considerably closer to Maybrick's office near the Exchange behind Liverpool Town Hall, and so within easy walking distance, which the Old Post Office pub was not. A modern forger could have made the mistake of thinking the Cumberland Street establishment was named "Poste Office" pub in 1888, because it sounds old. That is exactly what I think happened.

Hi Chris,

While the Poste House in Cumberland Street was closer to Maybrick's office, the Old Post Office pub - named the Post Office Tavern in 1888 if memory serves - was round the corner from Central Station, where he caught the train home to Battlecrease each evening, and very close to Whitechapel, Liverpool, to boot. So it's as broad as it's long really. It depends where and when the diary author imagined Maybrick taking his 'refreshment' - during the lunch hour near his office, perhaps? Or after work while waiting for his train? The e on Poste need not concern anyone too much, as the sign Poste restante would have been a familiar enough sight back then, and 'Sir Jim' also added an e to the post in 'post haste' - making it 'poste haste'.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I still have those other 45 pages to read before I'm up to speed, so apologies for any repetition.

[caz]

If not a modern forgery, Caz, that leaves:

• Old forgery
• Genuine article

Why do you favour the former over the latter?

Cheers,

Ike

Hi Ike,

Old 'hoax' is what I personally favour, and there is a difference.

There is no attempt to 'forge' Maybrick's handwriting, and that has to be significant in my opinion, possibly connected with the 'why'. Equally I can't see Maybrick writing those 63 pages in a deliberately disguised hand.

Love,

Caz
X