One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Henry Flower]

So the diary was brought forth by a man who bought an unused Victorian diary, who stated that he had forged the Maybrick diary, then stated that he had lied about forging it and it was genuine after all?

Forgive me, is that supposed to inspire more confidence in the diary?

Really?

Anyway, I'm way out of my depth on this thread, I'll just carry on enjoying reading you lot.

[David Orsam]

Sorry folks, I'm fairly uninformed on the diary. Can anyone confirm that these are some of the basic facts that are beyond doubt? -

The diary was introduced to the world by a chap called Mike Barrett - This is true.

Mike Barrett confessed to having forged the diary- This is true (the confession being that he forged it with his wife).

Mike Barrett had tried to purchase an unused Victorian diary - This is true (save that he tried to purchase a used Victorian diary with blank pages) and he did in fact purchase such a diary.

The diary contains at least one but perhaps three or more phrases that were almost certainly not in use till long after 1888 - I would say this is true and is incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable in the case of "one off instance" and, therefore, 'beyond doubt' but is, perhaps, in a different category of 'fact' from the above three .

[GUT]

There are doubtless many things "left out", but my question was, are the things I listed factual?

Yes.

But I think the retraction is important, not because I believe the diary.

[GUT]

So the diary was brought forth by a man who bought an unused Victorian diary, who stated that he had forged the Maybrick diary, then stated that he had lied about forging it and it was genuine after all?

Forgive me, is that supposed to inspire more confidence in the diary?

Really?

Anyway, I'm way out of my depth on this thread, I'll just carry on enjoying reading you lot.

According to some.

I have no idea how anyone can gave confidence in it.

Even if it was 109% genuine, the games that have surrounded it would worry anyone.

[David Orsam]

So the diary was brought forth by a man who bought an unused Victorian diary, who stated that he had forged the Maybrick diary, then stated that he had lied about forging it and it was genuine after all?

Forgive me, is that supposed to inspire more confidence in the diary?

Really?

Anyway, I'm way out of my depth on this thread, I'll just carry on enjoying reading you lot.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the retraction of Mike Barrett's confession (in a recorded interview) seems to be regarded by those who don't believe a single word Barrett says as genuine and believable, whereas his affidavit in which he confesses is not believed.

To save Caz the time, I would say that Ripper Diary: The Inside Story by Seth Linder, Caroline Morris and Keith Skinner is a very enjoyable and worthwhile read if you are interested in all the crazy twists and turns of the story.

[John G]

The diary was introduced to the world by a chap called Mike Barrett - This is true.

Mike Barrett confessed to having forged the diary- This is true (the confession being that he forged it with his wife).

Mike Barrett had tried to purchase an unused Victorian diary - This is true (save that he tried to purchase a used Victorian diary with blank pages) and he did in fact purchase such a diary.

The diary contains at least one but perhaps three or more phrases that were almost certainly not in use till long after 1888 - I would say this is true and is incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable in the case of "one off instance" and, therefore, 'beyond doubt' but is, perhaps, in a different category of 'fact' from the above three .

Hello David,

I've no doubt that Mike Barrett had some involvement in this "conspiracy", but it may have been quite quite minor, i.e. the purchasing of the diary and that of frontman.

However, the fact remains that people who have met Mike Barrett consider him to be a most unlikely forger of the diary.

And frankly, just because a person claims to have forged a Ripper diary, or makes the grandiose claim, "I think I have found him", doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to believe them.

[Henry Flower]

According to some.

I have no idea how anyone can gave confidence in it.

Even if it was 109% genuine, the games that have surrounded it would worry anyone.

Indeed. And moreover I'd be suspicious of that extra 9% of genuine. That reeks of forgery to me!

[Henry Flower]

There is a certain irony in the fact that the retraction of Mike Barrett's confession (in a recorded interview) seems to be regarded by those who don't believe a single word Barrett says as genuine and believable, whereas his affidavit in which he confesses is not believed.

To save Caz the time, I would say that Ripper Diary: The Inside Story by Seth Linder, Caroline Morris and Keith Skinner is a very enjoyable and worthwhile read if you are interested in all the crazy twists and turns of the story.

Thank you David. I'll get hold of it.

[David Orsam]

However, the fact remains that people who have met Mike Barrett consider him to be a most unlikely forger of the diary.

But as I keep saying John, who of those people had met him in or before March 1992?

People change don't they - especially alcoholics - so anyone who met him in 1993 or 1994 might have a false view of him. And if anyone met him when he was drunk that would surely distort their view because drunks are different people to when they are sober aren't they?

What does it really mean to say he was an "unlikely forger"? He told plenty of lies didn't he? So isn't that a big qualification?

He appears to have been capable of producing about 17 pages of research notes which he sent to Shirley Harrison. So he was sufficiently competent to do that. He was not incapable.

I just don't understand what it means to say he was an "unlikely forger". Give me some credible reasons why this description is valid.

[David Orsam]

And frankly, just because a person claims to have forged a Ripper diary, or makes the grandiose claim, "I think I have found him", doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to believe them.

No, of course not John but Mike Barrett is not just "a person" who claims to have forged a Ripper diary, he is the person who first produced the diary to the world.

Further, he placed an advertisement for a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. Why did he do that?

Further, a forensic document expert who examined the diary in 1992 found that the ink had only recently been added to the paper.

So it's not as if there isn't corroboration for the notion that the diary was produced in or around 1992.

What good reason is there not to believe that Barrett forged the diary with his wife?

[Henry Flower]

No Kindle version!? Aaaaargggh!

[GUT]

But as I keep saying John, who of those people had met him in or before March 1992?

People change don't they - especially alcoholics - so anyone who met him in 1993 or 1994 might have a false view of him. And if anyone met him when he was drunk that would surely distort their view because drunks are different people to when they are sober aren't they?

What does it really mean to say he was an "unlikely forger"? He told plenty of lies didn't he? So isn't that a big qualification?

He appears to have been capable of producing about 17 pages of research notes which he sent to Shirley Harrison. So he was sufficiently competent to do that. He was not incapable.

I just don't understand what it means to say he was an "unlikely forger". Give me some credible reasons why this description is valid.

One of the smartest blokes I've ever know, had degrees in law and actuarial studies, was an alcoholic, when sober for a few days (not that often) a genius, when drinking you'd take him for a blithering idiot.

[GUT]

Indeed. And moreover I'd be suspicious of that extra 9% of genuine. That reeks of forgery to me!

Phat phingers.

[GUT]

Let's not forget he swore not one, but two affidavits that he and his wife Anne, forged it.

[Sam Flynn]

No Kindle version!? Aaaaargggh!

I'm pretty sure I had a Kindle copy...


As you were! My mistake; what I meant to say was that I used my copy for kindling.