One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?

I’m not aware of anyone who knew him before March 1992 who has expressed an opinion on the subject either way. I don't even know if anyone has been asked.

But perhaps you can tell me: Who are all these people who knew him prior to March 1992 who have expressed an opinion that he did not have sufficient qualifications to do it then?

[David Orsam]

Most diary commentators will no doubt have read my little anecdote about a rude riddle Mike once tried to get published. It was one of those 'my first is in orange but not in apple' type of word puzzles, where the reader has to use the clues in each line to spell out a one-word solution. But Mike's words were all much naughtier than oranges and apples and the solution was not quite what he had had in mind because he couldn't spell it. There were eight lines of clues instead of six because he thought the rude word he was striving for was spelled 'o r g a n i s m'.

While I'm at it, I'm sure Robert Smith won't mind me telling you about another, more recent attempt by Mike to get something published. He wanted to write a novel around the 'coincidence' of Mary Kelly's murder happening on the same date as the destruction of the Twin Towers - 9/11.

Now I don't know whether he thought MJK died on September 11th, or the Twin Towers fell on November 9th, or whether he didn't think at all, but it's not a good look, is it?

You obviously don’t realise it but are actually providing evidence here which suggests that Barrett could easily have forged the Diary. He wanted to write a novel did he? So he at least thought he was capable of creative fiction. What else is the Diary but creative fiction?

With the diary, on his own account in his affidavit, he had his sensible wife writing everything out for him and thus checking everything first so he wasn’t going to be mistaking organisms for orgasms or getting dates the wrong way round.

The crucial point that I keep making and you keep ignoring is that it was supposed to be a joint enterprise.

[Iconoclast]

You actually quoted Iconoclast as saying "He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original" and, in response, you said(#2361): "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility".

I don't think this possibility - that he thought about it and sought to acquire a Victorian diary in pursuit of this possibility - is even vaguely crazy given the man's Walter Mitty ways. Of course it was doomed to fail for most if not all of the reasons you give, but the logic at the end of the bright idea may not have been as apparent to him at the start of it.

It's a possibility (the above bit), but the fact that he advertsied for a diary from 1880-1891 probably most strongly suggests that he just wanted to see what one would look like. Even Mike could not (surely) have thought it wise - or even possible - to acquire an 1891 diary and either find fortuitously that it had few 1891s in it or that he could somehow believably remove reference to those that were in it?

If the ad was for an 1888 diary, I'm right there in your camp, David, thinking he's been to Hoax School and graduated with Honours, but the reality is he didn't and I'm not convinced this is anything more than another sad moment in Mike's confused life.

[David Orsam]

It's a possibility (the above bit), but the fact that he advertsied for a diary from 1880-1891 probably most strongly suggests that he just wanted to see what one would look like. Even Mike could not (surely) have thought it wise - or even possible - to acquire an 1891 diary and either find fortuitously that it had few 1891s in it or that he could somehow believably remove reference to those that were in it?

If he had simply advertised for a diary from 1880-1891 then your argument would be weak but plausible.

But he didn't do this. He specifically wanted a diary with blank pages, thus limiting his chances of a positive result.

Are you saying he wanted to see what blank pages look like?

[David Orsam]

If the ad was for an 1888 diary, I'm right there in your camp, David, thinking he's been to Hoax School and graduated with Honours, but the reality is he didn't and I'm not convinced this is anything more than another sad moment in Mike's confused life.

We've discussed this before but the mistake you are making is to think that he (as a forger) needed a diary from 1888. He didn't. What he was after was the paper, not the diary so much.

The story in the Maybrick Diary obviously crosses from 1888 to 1889. A single year would have been too limiting for this story.

There is also NO WAY that the forger wanted a diary broken into printed weeks and days. That would have been far too complicated and would cause him untold problems.

Note how there is no real sense of time or dates in the diary. We have no idea what days events are occurring on other than matching the known events to actual days.

In other words, he is not interested in 1888 specifically. He just wants a book from the period with blank pages in which to write. It's not a diary he wants specifically but a journal or, as it transpired, a scrapbook. However the only way he can realistically get a period journal is to ask for a diary with blank pages.

[Iconoclast]

We've discussed this before but the mistake you are making is to think that he (as a forger) needed a diary from 1888. He didn't. What he was after was the paper, not the diary so much.

The story in the Maybrick Diary obviously crosses from 1888 to 1889. A single year would have been too limiting for this story.

There is also NO WAY that the forger wanted a diary broken into printed weeks and days. That would have been far too complicated and would cause him untold problems.

Note how there is no real sense of time or dates in the diary. We have no idea what days events are occurring on other than matching the known events to actual days.

In other words, he is not interested in 1888 specifically. He just wants a book from the period with blank pages in which to write. It's not a diary he wants specifically but a journal or, as it transpired, a scrapbook. However the only way he can realistically get a period journal is to ask for a diary with blank pages.

So you think he wouldn't have advertised for a (literally) plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP?

He was an unreliable guy, as we know from his various confession/retraction/confessions, and a complete fantasist, but in your scenario he seems to go out of his way to ask for more than he therefore needs, and potentially something which he absolutely doesn't need (the dates in an actual diary).

Are you therefore saying that he really wanted/needed a plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP but he asked instead for a diary from 1880-1891?

I must be tired - I'm just not following that one ...

[David Orsam]

So you think he wouldn't have advertised for a (literally) plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP?

He was an unreliable guy, as we know from his various confession/retraction/confessions, and a complete fantasist, but in your scenario he seems to go out of his way to ask for more than he therefore needs, and potentially something which he absolutely doesn't need (the dates in an actual diary).

Are you therefore saying that he really wanted/needed a plain journal/notebook dating from the LVP but he asked instead for a diary from 1880-1891?

I must be tired - I'm just not following that one ...

You are not seriously suggesting that one can now find a completely blank journal or notebook from the LVP in existence and buy it are you?

Who would have kept such a thing for 100 years? It's impossible.

If you want a book with pages from the LVP it's going to have to be filled with something.

If you are planning to create a fake diary from the LVP, the obvious thing to try and get hold of is an actual diary from the LVP, as long as it has blank pages. A big advantage of this is that you know for sure that it comes from the LVP and will thus pass any scientific test.

If you can't find one suitable then a scrapbook does the job once you remove the photographs it contains and remove any evidence about the date of that scrapbook.

If you are going to explain why Mike wanted an LVP diary with blank pages you really do need to explain why he wanted blank pages.

I have explained it. You haven't.

[caz]

Then you don't know the difference. Of course it would not be "a demonstrable untruth". It would only be so if you knew there were three pounds in the purse and it could be demonstrated that you knew it. If you genuinely thought there were four pounds in there then it's not an untruth, it's an error.

What?

An untruth may be defined as a statement, or an idea or belief, that is untrue (as in not true, false, not a fact).

So if I stated that I had four pounds in my purse (because I believed I had) and you checked and found only three, I would have made a statement that was demonstrably untrue, not true, false, not a fact, an error.

While most of the synonyms imply knowingly making an untrue statement, by no means all do:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth

You will note that among the first synonyms listed are: error, illusion, misbelief, misconception. Among the first related words listed are: inaccuracy, misapprehension, miscomprehension, misinterpretation, misjudgment, misperception, misunderstanding, misinformation, misknowledge, misreport, misstatement. Further down we also see inaccuracy and incorrectness.

None of the above necessarily imply a deliberate intention to tell lies or deceive, but I fully accept that Mike was quite possibly deceiving - deluding - himself more than anyone else.

Don't you think it was just a little bit insane to make a confession statement like his, which could easily have resulted in a second police investigation, followed by a conviction for fraud or deception (he had made a lot of money out of the book-buying public by then), but only if his claims contained truths that could be tested against the evidence to demonstrate he was knowingly involved beyond reasonable doubt in a hoax created in the late 20th century for profit?

If Mike knew it was all lies, however, told to get Feldman and all his demons off his back, while trying to make himself look like a master forger, he also knew nothing could be proven conclusively, so he could simply deny it all again (as he did at various times since 1995) if push came to shove, or if he wanted to revert to the Devereux provenance and his stated belief that the diary was genuine (which I believe was his final position). The one option he always denied the most consistently and strenuously was a Battlecrease provenance in any shape or form - the ideal backstory for a budding forger.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well this thread is only about refuting the Diary, not proving who forged it.

All I can do is note that Barrett says in his affidavit:

"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."

Why did that not happen?

Because Mike's original claim, that he wrote it himself, was not considered credible, so he had to come up with another idea?

Because it's not in Anne's handwriting and there is no evidence that she'd have been able to disguise it well enough and thoroughly enough to fool experts like Sue Iremonger?

Because (whisper whisper) the diary didn't need 'working on', having come out of Battlecrease and found its weary - wary - way to Mike, ready written and raring to go public?

Because had Mike 'worked on the story' himself he'd have had Mary Kelly killed on September 11th (9/11), between Chapman and the double event?

Because he'd have produced something even the most loyal wife would have been too embarrassed to write down?

Any more suggestions on a saucy postcard...

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

I agree with half of your post caz xxx

[pinkmoon]

I agree with half of your post caz xxxx

[pinkmoon]

Mike barrett didnt write it of that im sure .

[caz]

According to the diary, Maybrick hits Florence and then:

"I apologised, a one off instance, I said..."

So he records it as something he has said to his wife, who he presumably expected to understand him.

Ah, so you take it literally as a direct quote, David? Even so, I expect she would have understood what her hubby meant, seeing as he said "sorry" (or was it "I apologise"?) and went on to pretend that he "regretted" having hit her (in case she wasn't sure what sorry meant), then assured her it would never happen again. So perhaps when he told her it was a 'one off instance', and she said "what the heck is one of those when it's at home?" he was compelled to spell it out for her in the way he describes in the diary. I doubt she'd have been discombobulated for more than a second or two.

Now what do you make of 'the whores mole bonnett'? Would Florie have understood such a reference, do you suppose, where we have all been struggling to make sense of it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But I will add that have noticed that many of those who believe the diary to be genuine have been way to quick to dismiss what Barrett has said about how the diary was produced (based, it seems, largely on O&L's denials of selling such a diary in 1990 and minor points about how their auctions were conducted) and laughed (literally or metaphorically) at those who have dared suggest that on this occasion Barrett might have been telling the truth. As if such a thing is impossible.

Mike Barrett was the person who produced the diary to the world and Mike Barrett is the person who swore an affidavit telling the world that it was a forgery. You must admit that in those circumstances it is at least reasonable for the world to think it a forgery, no?

Hi David,

I'm not sure why you addressed this post to me.

I don't believe the diary to be genuine and am sick of having to repeat myself. Also, I have not said anything about the reasonableness or otherwise of a world that doesn't know Mike from Adam thinking it a forgery.

The world might not know that whoever penned the diary made no attempt to copy Maybrick's handwriting, making it a rather eccentric form of 'forgery'. That is why I prefer to think of it as a hoax, and go along with the Rendell team's 'prior to 1970' conclusion. I see the Rendell team as a more reliable witness than Mike. I apologise if that leaves you perplexed.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

What?

An untruth may be defined as a statement, or an idea or belief, that is untrue (as in not true, false, not a fact).

So if I stated that I had four pounds in my purse (because I believed I had) and you checked and found only three, I would have made a statement that was demonstrably untrue, not true, false, not a fact, an error.

While most of the synonyms imply knowingly making an untrue statement, by no means all do:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth

You will note that among the first synonyms listed are: error, illusion, misbelief, misconception. Among the first related words listed are: inaccuracy, misapprehension, miscomprehension, misinterpretation, misjudgment, misperception, misunderstanding, misinformation, misknowledge, misreport, misstatement. Further down we also see inaccuracy and incorrectness.

None of the above necessarily imply a deliberate intention to tell lies or deceive, but I fully accept that Mike was quite possibly deceiving - deluding - himself more than anyone else.

Did you miss this definition given by Websters of "untruth"?

"a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive."

If that was not the sense in which you were using the word when you said that parts of Barrett's statement were "demonstrably untrue" then what was the point you were trying to make?

If you were just trying to say that there might be some innocent errors in there, and that Barrett was not necessarily making statements known by him to be untrue, then there's not much point us having a semantic debate about the meaning of truth because I agree with you that this is possible.

In other words, Barrett was not necessarily lying when he said that the Diary was purchased in 1990 but confused as to the correct chronology.

And he was not necessarily lying when he explained how he purchased the Diary but a little confused in his recollection as to the system at O&L.

Do you agree with those last two statements?

If so, there is nothing between us.