One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

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.

For them to have been arrested, the police would not only have had to prove that the diary was a forgery but also that Mike and Ann forged it or knew it to be forged. Perhaps Mike and Ann could have come up with a cover story such as, oh I don't know, that it was given to them by a friend in a pub who was now dead.

How do the police disprove that? If they can't, Mike and Ann are in the clear.

[David Orsam]

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.

Yes, that's right, that post of mine (#1929) wasn't for you in any way, it was addressed to Iconoclast who had said that "Barrett's confession is fundamentally incorrect in every respect".

If you don't think that Barrett's confession is fundamentally incorrect in every respect (as you say you don't) there was really no need for you to trouble yourself to respond to my post.

[David Orsam]

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

No, you did not see such a post from me.

[David Orsam]

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?

If I can take it or leave it then I will leave it. I can't consider, or comment on, things that I know nothing about and are being kept secret (a la Pierre) can I? And, no, I think the questions you suggest would have been (and would still be) inappropriate considering that there appears to be some kind of confidentiality issue around them.

[David Orsam]

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.

Well that's a complete non-answer isn't it?

I'm even tempted to describe it as a cop out.

I suggest that the only plausible and credible reason for Barrett wanting a Victorian diary with blank pages (and going to the trouble of advertising for one and paying for it) is because he was intending to produce a forged Victorian diary using those blank pages.

There isn't another possible reason for it is there?

[David Orsam]

He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original.

Now let's see if we can think of a single word to describe such an extraordinary and irrational venture.

By jove I think I've got it.

Forgery.

[John G]

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!

Hello David,

But surely the issue here isn't whether it was feasible for the diary to have been written in 11 days, but whether it would be feasible for Mike Barrett could have written the diary in eleven days.

Thus, it does seem clear to me that the diary is an extremely good forgery-if it wasn't, we wouldn't have been debating its authenticity for over 20 years. I mean, it even impressed the highly respected crimonologist Professor David Canter. In contrast, consider the Hitler Diaries. They were also a very good forgery-good enough to have initially fooled the eminent historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. They also took around two years to complete. Nonetheless, the hoax was proved just days after publication.

Now, David, your obviously an exceptionally good researcher, but do you think it would be relatively easy for you to complete an equally good forgery in as little as 11 days?


Because it seems to me that people who knew Mike Barrett, or who have met him, have concluded that he could not.

[David Orsam]

But surely the issue here isn't whether it was feasible for the diary to have been written in 11 days, but whether it would be feasible for Mike Barrett could have written the diary in eleven days.

Well if it was feasible for the diary to have been written in 11 days, it was feasible for Mike Barrett (with his wife's assistance) to write it in 11 days.

I didn't know Mike Barrett in March 1992. Who did? So I have no idea what he was capable of at that time.

Don't forget that in his affidavit Barrett says:

"Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor."

So it's not necessarily 11 days from start to finish.

[David Orsam]

Thus, it does seem clear to me that the diary is an extremely good forgery-if it wasn't, we wouldn't have been debating its authenticity for over 20 years. I mean, it even impressed the highly respected crimonologist Professor David Canter. In contrast, consider the Hitler Diaries. They were also a very good forgery-good enough to have initially fooled the eminent historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. They also took around two years to complete. Nonetheless, the hoax was proved just days after publication.

I don't quite follow the logic of this paragraph. As I've already mentioned, some of the Hitler Diaries were written in days, if not hours. Yet, as you say, they fooled the eminent historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. Once examined properly they were not particularly good forgeries and were easily exposed. The fact that the diary has fooled some people might only show that some people are quite gullible.

I don't know about you but I certainly haven't been debating the authenticity of the diary for over 20 years. In fact it hasn't taken me very long to find an obvious error made by the author in respect of the phrase "one off instance".

And the diary was exposed as a fake by the Sunday Times BEFORE publication. It was on the front page of the newspaper!!! How is that an "extremely good forgery"?????

[David Orsam]

Now, David, your obviously an exceptionally good researcher, but do you think it would be relatively easy for you to complete an equally good forgery in as little as 11 days?

I really don't know but ask a half decent writer of fiction and I bet they could do it very easily.

[David Orsam]

Because it seems to me that people who knew Mike Barrett, or who have met him, have concluded that he could not.

I've only heard from people who have met him after March 1992 and most of those not particularly well.

You may recall that I tried to ask Caz why Mike and Ann could not have jointly written the diary but I didn't receive a satisfactory answer (in my opinion).

[David Orsam]

Over in JTR forums, as I've mentioned, the "one off" issue has been attracting some attention. Alas, no-one has found the time to correct the wrong information that James Maybrick's father was an engineer. Never mind.

Some inaccurate statements about me have also been posted. Here's the latest one:

"According to David, "one off standpoint" cannot exist in 1904."

No, I have never said that at all. On the contrary, had I been asked, I would have said it existed in 1903!

One off standpoint in the context of a pattern design is not comparable to one off instance as it appears in the diary.

Perhaps it will be helpful for me to post the 1903 examples that I have found. It will be my xmas present to the forum (and to the members of JTR Forums), which I hope will not turn out to be incomprehensible waffle, as another promised present has, sadly, turned out to be.

Having said this, the series of articles from which I draw the examples are about pattern making and much of it is indeed incomprehensible to a layman like myself. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject will be able to understand it.

From what I can comprehend, however, it is my contention that the uses of "one off" in 1903 and 1904 indicate that the expression was in a transitional phase between "phase 1" and "phase 2" at this time, moving from a mere quantity to something being unique. The strange way in which "one off" is used seems to support my contention, but hopefully everyone can judge for themselves.

[John G]

I don't quite follow the logic of this paragraph. As I've already mentioned, some of the Hitler Diaries were written in days, if not hours. Yet, as you say, they fooled the eminent historian Hugh Trevor-Roper. Once examined properly they were not particularly good forgeries and were easily exposed. The fact that the diary has fooled some people might only show that some people are quite gullible.

I don't know about you but I certainly haven't been debating the authenticity of the diary for over 20 years. In fact it hasn't taken me very long to find an obvious error made by the author in respect of the phrase "one off instance".

And the diary was exposed as a fake by the Sunday Times BEFORE publication. It was on the front page of the newspaper!!! How is that an "extremely good forgery"?????

But the problem with the Hitler Diaries is that, in contrast in to the Maybrick Diary, they were extremely extensive, amounting to a staggering sixty volumes. In hindsight, this was a pretty foolish strategy, as it would be incredible, in these circumstances, that the forger wouldn't make a few obvious errors. Moreover, Hitler's life, during the period the Diaries were purportedly written, is extremely well documented, and yet there wasn't a single reference to him ever keeping a dusty.And yet they initially fooled a highly respected World War 2 historian.

And are you suggesting that all sixty volumes were both written and researched in just a few days? Because, as far as I'm aware, Mike Barrett didn't say that he spent anytime researching the diary, apart from during the 11 days he says it took him to write.

I would also add that research is much easier today than, say, it was in the early 1990s, i.e. on account of the extensive electronic sources of information that are available, so errors are now far easier to determine.

[David Orsam]

And are you suggesting that all sixty volumes were both written and researched in just a few days?

No, of course not but the sixty volumes contained rather more than 63 pages. And those 63 pages comprise a mere 20 pages when transcribed at the back of Harrison (2003).

Because, as far as I'm aware, Mike Barrett didn't say that he spent anytime researching the diary, apart from during the 11 days he says it took him to write.

But John I just posted a quote from his affidavit in which Barrett says he started before the 11 days:

"Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor."

And there is more:

"The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possbility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper"

And:

"I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes."

Clearly there was a fair amount of preparatory work done before the 11 days.

[Iconoclast]

And the diary was exposed as a fake by the Sunday Times BEFORE publication. It was on the front page of the newspaper!!! How is that an "extremely good forgery"?????

Ouch!

The article in the Times screamed 'Fake!' in its headline but the article itself was extremely balanced, and made no such categorical conclusion.

The Times categorically did not expose the journal as a fake. End of.