One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

We Geordies just get everywhere, eh?

You certainly do, to an almost unbelievable extent.

[John G]

It was a joke, man.

A bit like the diary itself then, laddie.

[Iconoclast]

A bit like the diary itself then, laddie.

If you say so, Dad.

[John G]

If you say so, Dad.

I'm not that old!

[pinkmoon]

That's a very good point. Do you think it also undermines the argument that the diary is an old, as opposed to a relatively recent, forgery?

I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did.

[Iconoclast]

I'm not that old!

I'm not that young!

[Iconoclast]

I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did.

Pinky,

In that case, why on earth did the hoaxer get Kelly's breasts wrong? Do you think he or they were so fastidious in their research that rather than rely on the hundreds of available books on Jack, they actually sourced the original newspaper stories which incorrectly reported that her breasts were found on the table and then just cited that in the journal?

It seems deeply unlikely to me.

Old hoax theorists need to explain how the 'Poste House' anachronism could have been introduced long before the 'Poste House' was thus named (in 1965 or so).

New hoax theorists need to explain how the hoaxer could possibly have got the location of Kelly's breasts so very wrong.

Cheers,

Ike

[David Orsam]

In that case, why on earth did the hoaxer get Kelly's breasts wrong? Do you think he or they were so fastidious in their research that rather than rely on the hundreds of available books on Jack, they actually sourced the original newspaper stories which incorrectly reported that her breasts were found on the table and then just cited that in the journal?

It seems deeply unlikely to me.

Old hoax theorists need to explain how the 'Poste House' anachronism could have been introduced long before the 'Poste House' was thus named (in 1965 or so).

New hoax theorists need to explain how the hoaxer could possibly have got the location of Kelly's breasts so very wrong.

Doesn't Melvin Harris explain this in 'The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide Through the Labyrinth'?

MARY KELLY: The Diary says of Mary Kelly "...no heart no heart." and Feld 62-66 puzzles over this, but the fakers have simp]y picked up the words "He cut out her heart.." from Und p75. Again, it was that easy. And when the Diary says "...I cut off the breasts....Left them on the table with some of the other stuff..", it is merely echoing Und p75: "...he cut off her breasts.." and Und p25: "..on a table by the bed were the little piles of flesh, the breasts....and other parts of her body..." Easy once more!

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

'Und' being Peter Underwood's 'Jack the Ripper: 100 Years of Mystery' (1987).

[Iconoclast]

Doesn't Melvin Harris explain this in 'The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide Through the Labyrinth'?

MARY KELLY: The Diary says of Mary Kelly "...no heart no heart." and Feld 62-66 puzzles over this, but the fakers have simp]y picked up the words "He cut out her heart.." from Und p75. Again, it was that easy. And when the Diary says "...I cut off the breasts....Left them on the table with some of the other stuff..", it is merely echoing Und p75: "...he cut off her breasts.." and Und p25: "..on a table by the bed were the little piles of flesh, the breasts....and other parts of her body..." Easy once more!

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

'Und' being Peter Underwood's 'Jack the Ripper: 100 Years of Mystery' (1987).

Then I clearly need to get hold of a copy of Underwood because the quotation above is incomplete.

"..on a table by the bed were the little piles of flesh, the breasts....and other parts of her body..."

There are two cunning ellipses in there and the obvious question is what they hide. Did the original quotation read something like "..on a table by the bed were the little piles of flesh, the breasts were by the body and other parts of her body appeared to be missing"?

Obviously, I have added the italics in red as a hypothesis. The actual quotation probably states something quite different but if the tenor of the original is in any way as mine, then Underwood is highly unlikely to have influenced a hoaxer to get the location of Kelly's breasts wrong.

On the other hand, if Underwood's original text is self-evidently wrong and he does actually unequivocally suggest her breasts were found on the table, then that could well indeed have been the source of the 'hoaxer's' error.

Looks like a trip to Amazon for Ol' Ike ...

[David Orsam]

A quick online search of what other writers say:

"The flesh from the thighs and legs, together with the breasts and nose, had been placed by the murderer on the table" (Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Lane and Gregg, 1995)

"Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table." (Trial of Jack the Ripper, Euan McPherson, 2004)

"The kidneys and heart had been torn out and laid, together with her sliced-off breasts, on a table beside the bed." (1964 article in Books and Bookmen)

"The breasts, too, were cut away and placed on a bedside table. The heart and both kidneys had been removed and mounted alongside the breasts." (Great Mysteries of History, Kenneth B Patrick, 1973)

[Iconoclast]

A quick online search of what other writers say:

"The flesh from the thighs and legs, together with the breasts and nose, had been placed by the murderer on the table" (Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, Lane and Gregg, 1995)

"Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table." (Trial of Jack the Ripper, Euan McPherson, 2004)

"The kidneys and heart had been torn out and laid, together with her sliced-off breasts, on a table beside the bed." (1964 article in Books and Bookmen)

"The breasts, too, were cut away and placed on a bedside table. The heart and both kidneys had been removed and mounted alongside the breasts." (Great Mysteries of History, Kenneth B Patrick, 1973)

Looks like I need to thank you, then.

Saved me the cost of a book at the very least.

Ike

[John G]

I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did.

Thanks for the reply. It does therefore appear that Mike Barrett knew a great deal more than he was prepared to disclose publicly.

[pinkmoon]

Mike barrett and his wife knew everything

[caz]

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

If you were there too, Pinky, or if you have it on film, I'd need to start believing in the supernatural.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The point of a diary is to record the thoughts and actions of the diarist. This can be done in any form of book, for example an exercise book, as long as there is space to write.

Music to my ears, David. (Or it would be if I was hearing this instead of reading it. ) For years we've had objections on the grounds that the hoaxer made a grave error because the real Maybrick would not have used 'any form of book' for recording his thoughts and deeds, but could have afforded a fit-for-purpose proper diary, with dates and everything, for the years in question. My late father could have afforded umpteen exercise books for making notes for his own purposes, but he would always use the very last bit of available scrap paper before buying new.

...I'm no expert on 19th century diaries, but the question itself acknowledges that some diaries don't have evidence of the year on every major page and perhaps that was what Barrett was after. Even if the date was on every "major" page, some diaries have a notes section at the back which do not bear the date so that (as long as the year of the diary is not embossed on the front cover) Barrett could have removed all evidence of the year of the diary yet still retained the paper.

All fair enough, but the question remains why Mike would have left himself open to receiving a tiny - worse than useless - diary for the year 1891, two years after his chosen subject had kicked the bucket, if he was really planning to use it for a lengthy fake ripper confession.

Above all, Barrett doesn’t know if he can use an 1890 or 1891 diary with blank pages until he actually sees it.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Why put an order in that doesn't specify a latest possible date, if he knew Maybrick's last words had to be written by May 1889 at the latest, before diaries for 1890 would presumably have been available?

He can't just walk into a shop and pick up the ideal 1888-1889 diary. So he puts out the advert to try and get hold of any diary from the 1880s or thereabouts. But realizing that his task is impossible (as the only one available is a useless one from 1891) he goes to an auction and decides to use a photo album after removing the photographs. Hardly ideal but that's the best he can do.

As the Battlecrease evidence isn't compatible with anyone purchasing the photo album (or Victorian guard book) from O&L and transcribing the 'diary' into it after Mike received the tiny 1891 diary, I can't consider the above scenario workable. My feeling is that when Mike ordered the 1891 diary he hadn't really taken much notice of when 'Sir Jim' was meant to have recorded the events in 'the' diary. There are no dates within the main text to help him, but if he had planned this hoax he'd have needed to know them inside out.

Love,

Caz
X