One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

The problem here is that Barrett says (evidently from his memory) "I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland". Presumably, the search through the files and archives "on both sides of the alleged sale date" was on both sides of January 1990. But if Barrett got the date wrong in his affidavit (through poor memory, perhaps caused by excessive alcohol consumption) then the failure to find the diary in the search would not be surprising.

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?

Right, this one is #1922.

Again, all I can usefully add is that such a search - whatever dates it was based on - could not have turned up the Victorian guard book used by the diarist unless Mike had told the truth about bidding for it there and winning it, but told a pack of 'demonstrable' untruths about what went on at the auction house. If he was so forgetful by the mid-90s that he thought the purchase was in 1990, and not 1992, and that he obtained it after the tiny 1891 diary arrived, it might explain why he had to make up the finer details from whole cloth, but that's what he did according to O&L.

But let me ask you this, David: are you seriously considering the possibility that the guard book - minus its 63 pages of writing - was won at auction after 26 March 1992 and transformed into the diary, as we know and hate it, in time to hand over on 13 April 1992 for the first of an unknown number of close visual examinations and forensic tests, by an unknown number of professional document examiners, specialising in an unknown number of fields? Wouldn't the Barretts have both needed to be clinically insane to attempt this, in the wake of the disastrous Hitler Diaries, and then imagine in a million years that they wouldn't be banged up for fakery before either of them could say - let alone spell - "Kujau"?

Assuming we both believe it to be demonstrably untrue that James Maybrick ever held the pen that wrote the diary, I do find it extraordinary that anyone could still fondly imagine that Mike or Anne (or Gerard Kane or Billy Graham) might have been able to do so in less than three weeks and not be exposed and arrested just as quickly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Assuming we both believe it to be demonstrably untrue that James Maybrick ever held the pen that wrote the diary ...
X

Caz - hold the horses steady! Surely neither of you believe it to be demonstrably untrue???

As much as you are the Queen of the Casebook, I have to exert my democratic right to challenge such even regal claims!



The Ikester

[Iconoclast]

Caz - hold the horses steady! Surely neither of you believe it to be demonstrably untrue???

As much as you are the Queen of the Casebook, I have to exert my democratic right to challenge such even regal claims!



The Ikester

Sorry, of course David does. What on earth was I thinking?????

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

I would normally shrink from even thinking of posting on this thread, as I have to watch my blood-pressure and general mental state, but what do you genuinely think about Pinkmoon's claim that Barrett 'was in the room when the Diary was written?' Sorry if that's a rather facile question, but his claim intrigues the hell out of me, and he seems to be very quiet on these boards at the moment.

Graham

[caz]

Let's go through 10 key aspects of what Barrett says:

1. "When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out. I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

Hi David,

You were addressing this to another poster because I was absent from the thread at the time and don't think I ever used the phrase "fundamentally incorrect", or even referred specifically to the above claims.

I would just reiterate that as Mike made such a mess of the auction details, according to O&L, it doesn't bode well for any of the above reflecting the truth either. He seems to have suddenly recovered his memory remarkably well between his auction claims, being out by two years with his dates and the above attention to detail if the lapses were down to his brain being befuddled by booze. But I guess anything is possible with Mike, isn't it, including the ability from beyond the grave to make people wish away Keith Skinner's as yet unpublished Battlecrease evidence, which turn Mike's 'confessions' to mincemeat.

Incidentally, I believe I saw a recent post of yours observing that until the Battlecrease evidence emerges, my claim to its existence and to knowing its nature is baseless (a bit like Mike's claims then). But as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't expect you or anyone else to take it at face value. I merely pointed in a certain direction and others financed and carried out the investigation, so it is not for me to spill those particular beans. You can take it or leave it, but you could have asked Keith yourself to confirm its existence and our knowledge of its nature, could you not?

2."I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect?

Well I didn't say it was, but as he also told the private investigator he hired to prove he wrote the diary himself that this was caused when Anne dropped an actual kidney on it, I'd have to take his kidney with a few thousand grains of salt.

3. "I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

Again, I didn't say that, but it has to be a pile of poo in order for the diary to have come out of Battlecrease and found its way, already written, into Mike's paws. There is no evidence for the former, while Keith would tell you there is compelling evidence for the latter.

4. "Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

Firstly, there is no way in hell that Mike 'worked on the story' and produced those 63 pages with Anne's help in 11 days, allowing his young daughter to see them in action. If you believe otherwise, and have the evidence for it but are not at liberty to publish it yet, then fine. The Barretts did produce a typed transcript of the diary (I believe at Doreen Montgomery's request), so no doubt young Caroline would have been a witness to that.

5. "During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I don't, but taken with everything else, it stretches credulity to breaking point to allow that Mike was suddenly willing and able to claim something truthful about the diary's downfall and his part in it.

6. "Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I don't, but I'm not sure of its relevance. I have to presume that when the above statement was made, Mike would have had considerably longer than 11 days to try and familiarise himself with some of the related literature.

7. "Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I refer my honourable friend to answers I gave earlier.

8. "Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Ediated by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I don't, but what does it prove? I refer my honourable friend to my recent post on the subject of when Mike first claimed to know where the quotation came from; when and where he claimed to find it; and when he was eventually able to produce a copy, claiming he had it at home all along.

9. "I had actualy written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I don't, but destroyed evidence is no evidence at all, and I seem to recall that his sister denied all knowledge and said she had washed her hands of his shenanegans (but then she would say that, wouldn't she). Again, none of the above is compatible with what I know about the diary having been in the Maybrick house.

10. "I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary."

Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

I refer my honourable friend to answers I gave earlier.

Now I really must go off and wrap the mother-in-law's Chrissie presents, so I'll have to read through the latest dozen or so pages of posts at some other time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I would normally shrink from even thinking of posting on this thread, as I have to watch my blood-pressure and general mental state, but what do you genuinely think about Pinkmoon's claim that Barrett 'was in the room when the Diary was written?' Sorry if that's a rather facile question, but his claim intrigues the hell out of me, and he seems to be very quiet on these boards at the moment.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Just seen this one as I was posting to David.

I'm buggered if I know what's got into Pinkmoon, but it reads like he's been at the Christmas sherry.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm not sure what makes you think I am trying to hurry you up or not being patient. Take as long as you need.

And can I put in a request for an answer to my question (first posed yesterday): why did Barrett want a diary from the Victorian period with blank pages?

I would really like to hear your answer to this but, again, in your own time Caz.

Just a quickie for you here - I have no idea why Barrett wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages, nor how one could now go about proving it. Even if he were here to explain his motivation to you and you were satisfied, it would still be a matter of faith over actual evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Just a quickie for you here - I have no idea why Barrett wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages, nor how one could now go about proving it. Even if he were here to explain his motivation to you and you were satisfied, it would still be a matter of faith over actual evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

Topline, most plausible interpretation (assuming no guilt on his part): He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original. When that plan fell quickly apart, he took the journal, and the rest is ...

[Harry D]

No doubt it would be a damn sight easier to buy an 19th century journal in 1888 than it would in the 20th century. A modern hoaxer would have to make do with whatever he could get his hands on from that period, i.e. a scrapbook.

[David Orsam]

I am sure that I will regret posting again on this thread but this question has been bothering me and I would like to get other's opinions. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Maybrick was the Ripper and that the diary is legitimate. Wouldn't you think that he would have made some provision for it upon his death? Either disclose its (most likely hidden) location to a trusted friend with instructions that it be burned unread thus keeping his reputation intact or that it be turned over to the police as sort of a **** you. After all, the diary was indeed a "hot potato."....I probably should have included the idea of keeping it so well hidden that no one would ever find it.

The author of the diary makes it clear that he wants it to be found (and read) and for history to know his name.

"I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me. Remind all, whoever you may be, that I was once a gentle man. May the good lord have mercy on my soul, and forgive me for all I have done.

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born.

Yours truly

Jack the Ripper"

[David Orsam]

I have no dog in this fight but will simply take on the role of devil's advocate. Are we to assume that there was an individual or individuals or even some organization that recorded every single person's utterances either spoken or written in order to determine first usage of a word or phrase?

It's a bit depressing to read this kind of comment. Of course every single person's utterances are not recorded. But you need to have some kind of understanding how language works. It does not exist in a vacuum. What we are being asked to accept is that the diary author writes a phrase which is not repeated in any similar form for at least fifty years. It's totally unrealistic.

As I've already said, the use of "one off" to mean a person or thing (instance) is in effect a metaphor of an existing expression initially only used by engineers, builders etc. to mean a unique product or design. There is no evidence that THAT expression even existed in the nineteenth century but even if it did was a technical trade term only, not used by the general population.

So we are being asked to believe that the diary author took an expression that had a narrow specific meaning in a trade context and, on his own, turned it into a metaphor for him hitting his wife on one occasion whereby he apologises to her saying it was "a one off instance". He expects his wife to understand it and the readers of his diary to understand it even though it has never, as far as is known, appeared in print (or any form of writing) before this, even in the technical trade journals.

Then, despite this being an obviously useful expression, no writer of literature, no writer of non-fiction, no journalist, no civil servant or government employee in the millions of official government reports which survive, no known diarist, ever uses it again, or anything similar outside of the context an actual physical product or job, for at least fifty years. In 24 years no-one has been able to find a similar written instance of the phrase. Absent it being some kind of regional expression, only used in a particular local area, people just don't walk around for fifty years using phrases like this which don't get recorded somewhere. Further, if you actually do the research of the written use of the phrase "one off" during the twentieth century you can see it evolving before your eyes from some kind of manufactured product or job into a wider phrase with more general application. There is a clear linear progression.

I repeat an authority I provided earlier from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Modern Fable:

One-off. An unusual or unique person, especially positively so. The expression dates from the 1930s and originally applied to a single manufactured object of some kind, often produced as a sample or specimen.

We have an expert in Victorian literature from Oxford University, Dr Kate Flint, telling us that the expression didn't exist in 1888. The Oxford English Dictionary has no knowledge of it in the nineteenth century.

Against this, the argument (mainly on another forum!) seems to be "oh well, maybe it did". I suggest this is not an acceptable response.

[David Orsam]

Doesn't happen to me often (unless I'm reading my own), so thought I'd put it out there that David Orsam may actually be a funny guy. Mebbes aye, mebbes no.

I can confirm that he definitely has no sense of humour.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The above is #1574. Is this one of the posts you wished me to address? Beyond all the references to Outhwaite and Litherland in Ripper Diary, which you said you had later re-read, I'm not sure what you wanted me to say? Wasn't Caligo talking generally about auction houses in the north west, rather than O&L specifically?

The bottom line is that the details given by Mike were not recognised or accepted by O&L on any occasion that researchers have spoken directly with members of staff there.

No doubt you'd have been happier to see a written statement from the good people at O&L giving chapter and verse, but there seems little reason to believe they knew less about their own business and operating systems than Mike did, or that they were lying. And none of their customers from the late 80s/early 90s has come forward as far as I am aware to dispute O&L's version or confirm Mike's.

If you could clarify what it is you are still unhappy about I'll try to address that more specifically.

I'm not unhappy about anything Caz.

To remind you, you said that Barrett's claims were "demonstrably untrue". I asked you to demonstrate this but, in doing so, to take into account what I said in #1574.

The reason for this request was that there was no point in you coming back to say "the details of how the O&L auctions were carried out were in reality different to what Barrett says" if you can’t be sure that O&L did not give out receipts in the way that Caligo described so that Barrett was simply confusing his terminology by referring to a "ticket" rather than a "receipt."

So, yes, if you want to demonstrate that Barrett's statement was untrue you do need some form statement from O&L giving chapter and verse otherwise you are not demonstrating the untruth.

[David Orsam]

Right, this one is #1922.

Again, all I can usefully add is that such a search - whatever dates it was based on - could not have turned up the Victorian guard book used by the diarist unless Mike had told the truth about bidding for it there and winning it, but told a pack of 'demonstrable' untruths about what went on at the auction house. If he was so forgetful by the mid-90s that he thought the purchase was in 1990, and not 1992, and that he obtained it after the tiny 1891 diary arrived, it might explain why he had to make up the finer details from whole cloth, but that's what he did according to O&L.

All I can usefully say in response is that a search by O&L for a Victorian guard book sale in 1990 was never going to produce any useful results if the sale was actually in 1992 - and if the sale was in 1992, Barrett's affidavit on this point is not shown to be untrue, just confused.

Perhaps I should also add that Barrett specifically states in his 1995 affidavit that he purchased the 1891 diary before the Victorian Guard Book, and we know that 1891 diary was purchased in 1992.

[David Orsam]

But let me ask you this, David: are you seriously considering the possibility that the guard book - minus its 63 pages of writing - was won at auction after 26 March 1992 and transformed into the diary, as we know and hate it, in time to hand over on 13 April 1992 for the first of an unknown number of close visual examinations and forensic tests, by an unknown number of professional document examiners, specialising in an unknown number of fields? Wouldn't the Barretts have both needed to be clinically insane to attempt this, in the wake of the disastrous Hitler Diaries, and then imagine in a million years that they wouldn't be banged up for fakery before either of them could say - let alone spell - "Kujau"?

Yes, Caz, that is exactly the possibility I'm considering. Barrett said in his 1995 affidavit that it took 11 days to write the diary. He could have said 3 months or 6 months or 2 years but he said 11 days. That would have given him more than sufficient time between 26 March and 13 April 1992. I see absolutely no reason why it could not have been written in 11 days, especially if a draft had been prepared before that, so the contents had already been worked out. But even without that, I see no problem in those 63 pages being written in 11 days, at a relaxing average of 5.7 pages per day.

And I'm not sure what you think document document forgers do – put their forgeries into storage for 10 years to allow them time to ferment or something? I'm sure the good ones have techniques such as putting them in the oven or whatever to give them signs of being old. But it's obviously not that easy to scientifically establish if a document is new or old, which is why there are so many document forgeries in existence.

According to the Sunday Times, Dr Baxendale, an experienced document examiner, carried out an ink solubility test on the diary in 1992 and concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the last two or three years. According to Melvin Harris: "the ink dissolved at the fast rate one would find in a newish ink." Harris also says: "In August and October 1993, independent visual examination of the Diary ink, by myself, by Dr Joe Nickell, by Kenneth Rendell, by Maureen Casey Owens and by Robert Kuranz, revealed no signs of ageing. We were all viewing a fresh, washed-out looking ink, that gave signs of having been diluted. So at that time there were six examinations that all pointed to one conclusion: the ink was new."

You mention Kajau. You must be aware that he fooled all the experts, having simply churned out diary after diary, sixty volumes in total. According to Wikipedia: "He began working to a schedule of producing three diaries a month. He later stated that he managed to produce one of the volumes in three hours; on a separate occasion he wrote three diaries in three days." If he could fool the experts then surely so could Barrett. Some might even say he has!