One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[StevenOwl]

What I do find suspicious, however, is that Barrett contacted Doreen Montgomery on 9 March 1992 to ask if she would be interested in a Jack the Ripper Diary, then waited over a month before producing it while in the meantime placing an advertisement for a Victorian Diary with blank pages and acquiring one. Now THAT is suspicious! No?

So Barrett waits until he has a nibble from a publisher before even starting to create his forgery? I don't believe that for a second. I do believe that Barrett's original hairbrain plan was to make a copy of the Diary so he didn't have to take the original to London. He later realised how insane a plan that was and eventually did travel to London with the original.

[David Orsam]

So Barrett waits until he has a nibble from a publisher before even starting to create his forgery? I don't believe that for a second. I do believe that Barrett's original hairbrain plan was to make a copy of the Diary so he didn't have to take the original to London. He later realised how insane a plan that was and eventually did travel to London with the original.

If no-one is going to be interested, or he doesn't know what he is going to do with it, there would be no point in spending time and money in purchasing a Victorian Diary to create the forgery in the first place would there?

As for your suggestion of why Barrett would have made such an effort to locate and acquire a Victorian Diary at his own (or his wife's) expense, I can only repeat and agree with your words: "hairbrain" and "insane".

[StevenOwl]

If no-one is going to be interested, or he doesn't know what he is going to do with it, there would be no point in spending time and money in purchasing a Victorian Diary to create the forgery in the first place would there?

As for your suggestion of why Barrett would have made such an effort to locate and acquire a Victorian Diary at his own (or his wife's) expense, I can only repeat and agree with your words: "hairbrain" and "insane".

But he's already spent months on research by that time, he may as well just go ahead and make the physical artefact. I mean, if it turns out he can't, then it's game over.

And without wishing to malign the dead, the simple-mindedness required to come up with such a scheme that I (and I think Ike as well) believe to be the most plausible explanation of why Barrett attempted to purchase a late Victorian Diary, seems to be fairly close to to the truth about how Mike Barrett's mind worked, based on what many who knew or met him have said over the years. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but I've always got the distinct impression that Barrett was a simple man of barely average intelligence; almost certainly not capable of forging the Diary, but definitely capable of thinking of a scheme such as making a copy of the Diary prior to establishing the required level of trust in whoever he was going to hand the original over to.

[Trevor Marriott]

So Barrett waits until he has a nibble from a publisher before even starting to create his forgery? I don't believe that for a second. I do believe that Barrett's original hairbrain plan was to make a copy of the Diary so he didn't have to take the original to London. He later realised how insane a plan that was and eventually did travel to London with the original.

I think you will find that the chain of events you suggest did not happen in that way. Read my earlier posts on the subject and I am sure you will be able to work out how the real chain of events unfolded.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

But he's already spent months on research by that time, he may as well just go ahead and make the physical artefact. I mean, if it turns out he can't, then it's game over.

What research are you talking about?

And what "physical artifact"?

On your account of events, he already has the physical artifact (i.e. the Diary) in his possession doesn't he?

[David Orsam]

And without wishing to malign the dead, the simple-mindedness required to come up with such a scheme that I (and I think Ike as well) believe to be the most plausible explanation of why Barrett attempted to purchase a late Victorian Diary, seems to be fairly close to to the truth about how Mike Barrett's mind worked, based on what many who knew or met him have said over the years. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but I've always got the distinct impression that Barrett was a simple man of barely average intelligence; almost certainly not capable of forging the Diary, but definitely capable of thinking of a scheme such as making a copy of the Diary prior to establishing the required level of trust in whoever he was going to hand the original over to.

In what way do you think this scheme could ever be described as "plausible"?

If he doesn't trust the person he is going to show the diary to, wouldn't he just write out the text in an exercise book or (more probably) produce a printed version of the transcript from a computer? He could show her photographs of the actual diary.

You seriously think he is going to go to the trouble and expense of paying for an advertisement for a Victorian diary with blank pages and then actually acquire such a diary then first cut out the existing pages, remove any traces of it being an 1891 diary, then copy out the text of the diary into that diary in a Victorian handwriting style to make it appear to be the genuine article?

I mean, you do realise that what you are suggesting is that Barrett must have been intending to prepare a forged diary to show Doreen Montgomery don't you?

In his mind he must have thought that he is going to present it to her as the genuine diary from 1888/9 mustn't he, so it was going to have to look perfectly Victorian. I'm not sure there's much point me going on because you've already admitted the whole thing is insane but Doreen will presumably examine the diary and then either accept it as genuine or reject it.

If accepted as genuine he then has to say to her "well actually that's a fake, I have the real one at home" or if she spots it being a modern forgery he says to her "ha ha, well spotted, I have the real one at home, no seriously!".

No-one in their right mind is going to come up with such a plan. But you've kind of trumped me by admitting that it is mental but yet seriously seem to suggest it might have been contemplated.

Surely the obvious reason for him advertising for and acquiring a Victorian diary with blank pages is so that he could write out a pre-prepared fake diary into that genuine diary. Isn't that so? I mean, you must surely admit that this is the most obvious reason for him doing it, isn't it?

[StevenOwl]

What research are you talking about?

And what "physical artifact"?

On your account of events, he already has the physical artifact (i.e. the Diary) in his possession doesn't he?

Yes, I believe Barrett already had the Diary as we know it (genuine or old hoax, I know not) in his possession at the time he contacted Doreen Montgomery.

I'm saying that IF Barrett forged the Diary (his "physical artefact") in the 11 days between him buying a Victorian scrapbook and delivering it to Doreen Montgomery, then he presumably had spent months leading up to that time researching both Jack and Jim, and drafting the text as he intended to dictate it to Anne.

[David Orsam]

I'm saying that IF Barrett forged the Diary (his "physical artefact") in the 11 days between him buying a Victorian scrapbook and delivering it to Doreen Montgomery, then he presumably had spent months leading up to that time researching both Jack and Jim, and drafting the text as he intended to dictate it to Anne.

Yes, exactly, but your theory was based on him not having forged the diary so I still don't understand why you mentioned months of research as some kind of motivation for him acquiring the 1891 diary.

I mean, you said:

"But he's already spent months on research by that time, he may as well just go ahead and make the physical artefact. I mean, if it turns out he can't, then it's game over."

That's precisely what I am saying isn't it? He's done the research and he now needs to acquire a Victorian Diary. He advertises for one and acquires one from 1891. But that's not suitable for his purpose so he goes out to an auction and gets the scrapbook into which he writes out the (fake) text of the diary.

Is there any reason why you think that version of events is not plausible?

[caz]

The earliest example of that exact expression that I have found in writing is, nevertheless, 1981...

I must apologise, David, for missing this when I read the rest of the post it came from. I was just checking back quickly before signing off for the hols. If you haven't already done so in the latest posts which I have yet to read, can you recall precisely where you found it, and the context? Many thanks.

Could I also just confirm with you: is this the only example of 'one off instance' you have found, at any point between 1888 and 1992, or did you find more, between your 1981 example and 1992? I mean, if it was such a rare thing for anyone to say or write before the diary emerged, one wonders where our tricky diarist got it from, or did he/she just conjure it up by themselves?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

It was from an Official Report of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons saying that a legal decision "was not a one-off instance of guidance from the court".

After having found one from a certain year I tended not to look forward in time, only backwards, but I'm sure there were plenty of others after this. As I've already said, by 1992 the expression was in common usage and there is no mystery as to how anyone in England at that time would have known it.

[David Orsam]

Can I just make a few things clear so that there is no misunderstanding.

Firstly, similar expressions to "one off instance" can be found easily during the 1970s and to a lesser extent in the 1960s. I've given a few of these earlier: one off affair, one off occasion, one off incident, one off occurrence etc.

Secondly, in no way am I saying that the expression "one off instance" did not exist before 1981 simply because it cannot be found in searches of digital material. I specifically allowed it to exist back to the 1940s, which is why I keep saying that it was not repeated for fifty years after 1888 (as opposed to ninety years). I doubt it went that far back actually but I can't be absolutely certain.

Obviously during the post war period, television is a big way of developing language and we can't search television programmes. Cinema and radio are obviously important too and have been throughout the 20th century.

But what I am saying is that the explosion of written references to similar expressions during the 1960s and, particularly, the 1970s is very marked and clear when one does the searches.

Finally, one can certainly find more written examples of "one off instance" after 1981 and before 1992. Thus, from the Hansard record of Parliament in Victoria, Australia, in 1982:

"Although the Government should ensure that voting is compulsory in this one-off instance, it would be far better if local government decided whether or not voting is compulsory in municipal elections."

Again from Victoria, a 1985 Review of Occupational Health and Safety Agreements:

"Another development is the procedure for dealing with a one-off instance of asbestos ceiling lining."

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the expression was in common use by 1992.

[Pcdunn]

Americans are baffled by expression "one-off", mistaking it for a shortened version of "one of a kind", but linguist correctly explains its derivation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/04FOB-onlanguage-t.html

I will admit to never having heard "one-off" in any of the various examples and phrases mentioned in this thread. I was about to state that our version of "one-off" as meaning "unique" was "one of a kind" (often used in referring to art pieces or teddy bears, dolls, etc.)-- but luckily thought to search it first. It looks as though this expression is just now crossing the Atlantic to enter our version of the English language.

[c.d.]

Is it just me or does it seem like some people have way too much free time on their hands?

c.d.

[John G]

I don't think so.

Have you read this:

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

Answers your earlier question to Iconoclast incidentally.

The link appears to be defective!

[John G]

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

Thanks for this Trevor, very interesting, particularly as regards the involvement of Robert Smith, which I was unaware of.