One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John G]

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).



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.

But don't you think that Barrett is being extremely ambiguous about the research he undertook? Isn't that in itself suspicious? I mean, "We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter [ which, if true, must surely have taken a great deal longer than a few days]", is hardly very revealing, is it? Particularly when you consider that, in the early 90s, research couldn't be conducted over the internet, utilizing electronic sources of information, which would no doubt make such an endeavour a lot simpler today.

And is it really feasible that Barrett read every relevant source, i.e. book, journal, newspaper article, as his statement implies?

[David Orsam]

Ouch!

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

Are you having a laugh?

Headline on front page: "Jack the Ripper diary is fake."

Content of front page article: "The Sunday Times established that the diary was a fake three months ago..."

Says that a dossier compiled by the Sunday Times had been passed to Scotland Yard's serious crime branch.

In the main article it starts, in bold, saying that James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper "and his so called diary is a fake".

There is a list of "SIX REASONS WHY IT'S FAKE"

The main article concludes: "The book will now carry the sticker "Is it genuine? Read the evidence. Then judge for yourself." We have. It is not."

How you think that is "balanced" or makes "no categorical conclusion" is simply beyond me.

[John G]

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.

Hi Iconconclast,

How much of the information contained in the diary could have been sourced by referring to the popular JtR books that were available in the early 1990s?

I think this is important, because obviously information that would have to be sourced from newspaper articles, or maybe out of print texts, would imply advanced research skills, particularly in an era when electronic sources of information were not available.

[David Orsam]

But don't you think that Barrett is being extremely ambiguous about the research he undertook? Isn't that in itself suspicious? I mean, "We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter [ which, if true, must surely have taken a great deal longer than a few days]", is hardly very revealing, is it? Particularly when you consider that, in the early 90s, research couldn't be conducted over the internet, utilizing electronic sources of information, which would no doubt make such an endeavour a lot simpler today.

This is a totally different question to the one you first raised. Is Barrett being "ambiguous" about the research he undertook? He certainly deals with it very briefly but I don't think "ambiguous" is the correct word. Nor do I find it "suspicious". But, really, why are you asking me?

How have we moved from discussing a simple proposition as to whether Barrett could have written the diary in the time frame he stated in his affidavit to a discussion about the drafting of his affidavit?

[David Orsam]

And is it really feasible that Barrett read every relevant source, i.e. book, journal, newspaper article, as his statement implies?

But his statement doesn't actually imply that he read "every relevant source". His meaning is surely very clear. He read everything he could find about Jack the Ripper. That is perfectly feasible.

[Abby Normal]

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).



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.

Hi David
I knew he had confessed to forging at some point. Did he retract that confession later?

I mean if this dude actually signed an affidavit stating he forged the diary what in the world are people still discussing this for? what they don't believe his confession or something? do they think it was beaten out of him? LOL!

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I knew he had confessed to forging at some point. Did he retract that confession later?

I mean if this dude actually signed an affidavit stating he forged the diary what in the world are people still discussing this for? what they don't believe his confession or something? do they think it was beaten out of him? LOL!

Hi Abby,

Without me going back to check all the actual twists and turns, I think it's likely that he did retract the confession then retract that retraction then change his mind again and so on. He was an alcoholic and seems to have been an unreliable character.

For that reason, one certainly can't take anything he has ever said as gospel, especially without corroboration.

However, my focus is rather different. As far as I can see, some people seem to think that Barrett's affidavit can be dismissed out of hand - basically laughed at - and we've seen phrases like "demonstrably untrue" and "fundamentally incorrect in every respect". I personally think they are being a bit lazy (intellectually speaking). I have read everything I can and haven't yet seen a convincing case for why the account set out in Barrett's affidavit must be wrong.

It's actually what brought me into this thread - when someone said that Barrett's account of the diary (scrapbook) purchase was all wrong without providing any supporting details.

I've yet to see any good reason why the account provided by Barrett (allowing for genuine memory lapses and confusion over details) cannot be basically correct. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why he made an extreme effort to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages a few weeks before he presented the Maybrick diary to the world. I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why he and his wife could not have forged the diary in March/April 1992.

[David Orsam]

The journal 'The Model Engineer and Electrician: A Journal of Practical Mechanics and Electricity' included a series of articles by T.D. Garscadden entitled "Simple Lessons in Pattern Making' starting on 1 January 1903 and concluding on 28 April 1904.

There are a number of extracts of interest:

The first (from 30 April 1903), in respect of making a bedplate for a compound undertype engine, says:

"While still in one piece, draw off the length with the cutting end of the drawpoint, using the front end piece as a template, and keeping thick edge to thick edge…Now turn your attention to the crank pits...Now gauge to the various thicknesses on the edges, and plane down, afterwards cutting out to radii as given in drawing of casting. Draw one off, cut it out and use it as a template to draw the rest from, taking care in the doing of it to make them rights and lefts."

I'm afraid I really have no idea what it means to "draw off" or to "draw one off" but I don’t think it is connected with the expression of "one off" that we are concerned with.

The next extract (26 November 1903) is this:

"Sufficient to say here that I have designed it [a pattern for a motor cycle cylinder] with a view to one being cast as cheaply as possible in an ordinary moulding box at any jobbing foundry, and it is rather different from what would be made to cast from in quantity, with its accompanying special moulding boxes." [N.B. the word "one" is italicised in the original, I have used bold]

Then (3 December 1903) the author moves to coreboxes and says (my bold highlighting):

"If a number of castings were required by this method of moulding, it would pay to taper the top or closing halves of prints and make the core-boxes to suit. However, with a proper understanding of above, start making from a "one off" standpoint: it does not matter which one you do first, but all through, have a keen sense of the importance of making each core to fit its imprint, and also to bear a true relation to any other core it has come in contact with."

The "one off standpoint" here seems to relate to making only one casting as opposed to a number of castings although what is being "made" here is the "core" so I can't be quite sure what he is talking about.

In the 1904 volume (14 January) it is stated:

"Now, you can easily understand that the contracting forces in a wheel with an odd number of arms are less antagonistic than in one with an even number. Of course, the odd number does not look so well, and I show two other ways (Fig. 65) whereby the same result can be obtained with an even number. The curved-arm one has one decided advantage in that the molecules of molten iron maintain a rotary motion from "gate" to rest, which is most conducive to a good casting; and herein lies the virtue of fillets generally. So much for theory now for the practice...Turn down the outside half to 7/8 in. thick to receive "segments," and mark the exact centre with a drawpoint held to the running job. For the segments, cut a piece roughly as per sketch, and plane to about 5-16ths in. thick, and after drawing one off as shown, saw it out and use as a templet to draw off the others with a pencil, allowing a little over the butts for jointing.”

[Diagram labelled "SEGMENTS DRAWN OFF"]

So again we have the expression "drawing one off" and, initially, I thought this meant that Garscadden was thinking of "one off" as a drawing with a segment removed or drawn off (and he makes use of the phrase "drawn off" a number of times) but a little later (18 February), he makes this crucial statement:

"In order to emphasise my reasons for sometimes advocating methods differing from the conventional, and also to teach both ways, I have begun the subject of grooved pulleys by showing a section through mould and pattern of a "plated" one – that is, solid web instead of arms. You will notice that the orthodox method of making the pattern halved, as in Fig. 69 necessitates two "partings" of the mould. Now, while this may be the best method for producing in quantity (questioned by some up-to-date foundries, and the writer) in that it saves core-making, it is different with your requirements of only one or two off at a time…..As to the "one off" way, little need be said regarding procedure…"

So again we have "one off" apparently being used to refer to a single manufactured item but there is also a critically important reference to "two off at a time" suggesting that we might have found the "Missing Link" at a point between the use of "one off" as a mere quantity and its use to indicate a special or unique item.

It may be noted that Garscadden also says:

"As I daresay you will have seen, it has been my constant endeavour to keep the latter fact in mind throughout these lessons, and to show ways and means whereby patterns seemingly difficult to mould may be made to do so quite easily in an ordinary one-parting mould…

There are then two diagrams labelled as follows:

FIG. 69 – GROOVED PULLEY: ORTHODOX WAY

FIG. 70 – GROOVED PULLEY: "ONE OFF" WAY

Although it is not entirely clear, it seems to me that the "orthodox way" involves bulk manufacture whereas the "one off way" involves single item manufacture but that Garscadden is advocating a method, as he says, "differing from the conventional". The explanation is undoubtedly in the diagrams provided but not being an engineer I don't understand them.

If Garscadden has coined the phrase "one off way" then perhaps he was responsible for changing the meaning of the phrase "one off" from pure quantity to something unique, although the distinction between the two is a very fine one.

Either way, I challenge anyone to say that here we have a clear use of "one off" to mean unique. It's certainly not language being used for non-engineers or pattern makers.

I might add that the example produced in JTR Forums, also referring to a one off standpoint, comes from the Model Engineer and Electrician of 3 March 1904 and is in the Queries and Replies section in response to a reader of the earlier articles asking Garscadden for some information about "the pattern on a 6-in centre back geared lathe headstock". Anyone know what that is? I thought not. In his response, Garscadden refers to a certain plan "though the simplest from a "one off" standpoint" being "apt to leave an ugly "parting" mark all round the casting." He then advises "to make it to mould in the conventional way".

[GUT]

Hi David
I knew he had confessed to forging at some point. Did he retract that confession later?

I mean if this dude actually signed an affidavit stating he forged the diary what in the world are people still discussing this for? what they don't believe his confession or something? do they think it was beaten out of him? LOL!

Yes he later retracted.

But why make a confessing affidavit in the first place.

I can understand why he might withdraw when some of the possible (likely) consequences were explained to him.

[harry]

One off,two off,three off.Where else might one have found such an expression in earlier times.Not suggesting it has any bearing on the journel,but it was used extensively in earlier times.It was used in the reporting of cricket.One off the last ball,two off the last over etc.One off the top of my head,was something different.

[John G]

This is a totally different question to the one you first raised. Is Barrett being "ambiguous" about the research he undertook? He certainly deals with it very briefly but I don't think "ambiguous" is the correct word. Nor do I find it "suspicious". But, really, why are you asking me?

How have we moved from discussing a simple proposition as to whether Barrett could have written the diary in the time frame he stated in his affidavit to a discussion about the drafting of his affidavit?

Because I believe whoever wrote the diary must have researched the Whitechapel murders, and the life of James Maybrick, in some detail. However, Barrett suggests that he completed all the necessary research in just a few days- at the very least he's vague about this point. Moreover, he gives virtually no detail, either at the time of the affidavit, or as far as I'm aware in the future, about how he undertook that research and what sources he consulted. I mean, in a subsequent "confession" he does say that he once worked as a barman at the Post House and that's how he "gained full knowledge" of the pub's history, but that's not very revealing either.

And that makes me suspicious. Just as it makes me suspicious when someone comes along claiming to have discovered who JtR was and is then extremely reticent about providing information as to how he arrived at that conclusion.

[John G]

Hi David
I knew he had confessed to forging at some point. Did he retract that confession later?

I mean if this dude actually signed an affidavit stating he forged the diary what in the world are people still discussing this for? what they don't believe his confession or something? do they think it was beaten out of him? LOL!

Hi Abby,

I understand that he confessed, and retracted his confessions, several times. It seems to me, therefore, that it's difficult to believe anything he says, particularly as he's never given very much detail as to how he managed to research the diary in age without electronic resources of information to refer to.

And, at the very least, exactly how are we to determine what is the real truth? The confessions or subsequent retractions?

And here's another thing. Just because someone comes along as says "I wrote the Ripper Diary" or "I know who JtR is", doesn't mean I'm just going to believe them. Particularly if they keep changing their mind and can't provide any supporting evidence.

[John G]

I would just add that Barrett's claim that he gained "full knowledge" of the history of the Post House pub, because he once worked there as a barman, seems almost comical to me. I mean, how exactly did he come about this information? Did the brewery give him full access to the historical records? Why would that be? Or did he acquire this "full knowledge" during a series of conversations with a number of slightly, or perhaps not so slightly, inebriated regulars?

And just out of interest, is there any proof that he actually did work there?

[Trevor Marriott]

Because I believe whoever wrote the diary must have researched the Whitechapel murders, and the life of James Maybrick, in some detail. However, Barrett suggests thst he completed all the necessary research in just a few days. Moreover, he gives no detail whatsoever, either at the time of the affidavit, or as far as I'm aware in the future, how he undertook that research and what sources he consulted.

And that makes me suspicious. Just as it makes me suspicious when someone comes along claiming to have discovered who JtR was and is then extremely reticent about providing information as to how he arrived at that conclusion.

It is quite clear to me that Barrett did not go to the solicitors in the first instance and quote the content of the first affidavit to the solicitor verbatim. There is far to much content, and detail for that to have happened. Either that first affidavit was compiled from a draft Barrett prepared in advance, or someone prepared a draft for him to take to the solicitor.

It would be interesting to know in what chronological order the main protagonists in this whole diary affair became involved. That might help point to who the main conspirators were, and eliminate others, if there was in fact such a conspiracy involving Barrett and another, or others.

It would be interesting to know the outcome of the police investigation, but that will never be publicly known. Any freedom of information request will be refused on the basis of the fact the police will say that the case is still open, despite several of the main protagonists who were interviewed are now deceased.

I am puzzled by the outcome of the police investigation. Barretts affidavit on the face of it clearly points at attempts by him to defraud, yet no charges were brought against anyone, that could have been as a result of the intended victims did not want to go to court with the matter,despite it would seem making complaints to the police in the first instance.

From an investigative perspective there are questions which I dont have the answers but I am sure someone does, these being

Who made complaints to the police?
How were the royalty advances paid to Barrett?
How much did he receive, and from whom?
Were they paid in to his bank account or that of another?
How much was subsequently re paid?
How was it repaid?
At what point did Robert Smith become involved?
What was his involvment?
What was his financial involvement.
Did he broker the publicity deals?

As to Robert Smith,several years ago at a Ripper conference when he and I were both present, and he was showing off the diary, I attempted to ask him some questions about the diary, his reaction was to close up the diary pick it up and walk off without any explanation, now wasn't that strange. I wonder why?

The truth is still out there, it did not die with Feldman or Barrett

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

It is quite clear to me that Barrett did not go to the solicitors in the first instance and quote the content of the first affidavit to the solicitor verbatim. There is far to much content, and detail for that to have happened. Either that first affidavit was compiled from a draft Barrett prepared in advance, or someone prepared a draft for him to take to the solicitor.

It would be interesting to know in what chronological order the main protagonists in this whole diary affair became involved. That might help point to who the main conspirators were, and eliminate others, if there was in fact such a conspiracy involving Barrett and another, or others.

It would be interesting to know the outcome of the police investigation, but that will never be publicly known. Any freedom of information request will be refused on the basis of the fact the police will say that the case is still open, despite several of the main protagonists who were interviewed are now deceased.

I am puzzled by the outcome of the police investigation. Barretts affidavit on the face of it clearly points at attempts by him to defraud, yet no charges were brought against anyone, that could have been as a result of the intended victims did not want to go to court with the matter,despite it would seem making complaints to the police in the first instance.

From an investigative perspective there are questions which I dont have the answers but I am sure someone does, these being

Who made complaints to the police?
How were the royalty advances paid to Barrett?
How much did he receive, and from whom?
Were they paid in to his bank account or that of another?
How much was subsequently re paid?
How was it repaid?
At what point did Robert Smith become involved?
What was his involvment?
What was his financial involvement.
Did he broker the publicity deals?

As to Robert Smith,several years ago at a Ripper conference when he and I were both present, and he was showing off the diary, I attempted to ask him some questions about the diary, his reaction was to close up the diary pick it up and walk off without any explanation, now wasn't that strange. I wonder why?

The truth is still out there, it did not die with Feldman or Barrett

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

very good questions.

yes the answers would be very interesting would they not?


Steve