One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Also, have you any thoughts as to why anyone 'about to forge an LVP diary' would a) alert a literary agent before they had even found a suitable book with enough blank pages for their creation, or b) not give it a sensible interval between putting ink to paper and allowing anyone to see it - unless of course they needed a check up from the neck up? Why the indecent haste, if the plan had been taking shape nicely since before Tony went downhill?

Regarding your first question, yes I have. Mike simply wanted to know if there would be any interest from a literary agent for Jack the Ripper's diary. Having discovered that there would be such interest he went about obtaining a book with enough pages for its creation. No point spending the money on such a thing if there was no-one he could give it to.

As for your second question, I simply do not know what you mean by "a sensible interval between putting ink to paper and allowing anyone to see it". What is a "sensible interval" in your opinion? What do you think the visible difference is between a period of two days and a period of two months? As far as I am aware there is no difference. Once you have your fake Diary, and your literary agent lined up, you use it. It's simple. No "indecent haste" involved at all.

[David Orsam]

And therein lies your problem, David, if I may be so bold. You have adjusted Mike's impossible chronology to fit and you have limited yourself to an illogically, if not impossibly tight time frame, which would make Mike and his sensible, sober wife Anne the daftest pair of forgers ever not to be exposed as the creators of their own forgery.

But there is nothing illogical or impossibly tight about the time frame. Nor do I understand what was daft about Mike producing the Diary for Doreen as soon as it was ready.

You ignore the point I have made more than once that Mike said it took him 11 days to produce the Diary. He could have said two months or six months but he happened to give a time frame that fits perfectly into the period 28 March to 13 April.

Earlier in this thread you seemed to be telling me that someone investigating this matter would have been "incompetent" to have ignored the possibility that the Diary was acquired on or around 26 March and produced in an 11 day period between then and 13 April. But here you are seemingly dismissing the notion out of hand by calling it "an impossibly tight time frame". But there is nothing at all impossible about it. The whole point is that it IS possible. It therefore needs to be seriously considered.

[David Orsam]

I am often reminded on this thread of the arguments made by Lechmere theorists, who rely on the lack of knowledge about their suspect and his character to put the most sinister interpretation on the few known facts about him. It's lazy.

Well, if you are referring to my interpretation of Mike's attempt to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages, I suggest that it is the only sensible interpretation and that the interpretation you have put forward is neither sensible, credible nor believable. In fact, one might well describe your interpretation as "lazy".

[David Orsam]

So again, why the indecent haste to announce you have Jack the Ripper's diary before you even have something to write it in? Were Mike and Anne afraid the dog would eat their homework if they didn't get a move on?

They didn’t "announce" anything Caz. Barrett did no more than enquire (using a false name by the way) if Doreen would be interested in Jack the Ripper's Diary. He was simply dipping his toe in the water.

A more pertinent question is why, having been told that there was indeed interest in Jack the Ripper's diary, it took him a month to produce it. I mean, what was he doing? Writing the bleedin' thing?

[StevenOwl]

The whole point is that it IS possible. It therefore needs to be seriously considered.

And yet you won't consider anything that doesn't suit your theory, even if it's also perfectly possible

[David Orsam]

And yet the tiny Victorian diary sent to Mike was made for the year 1891. So it seems anyone can be excused for not really knowing if it was the norm or not to market formal made-for-purpose diaries for specific years. If Mike understood that a diary of one's personal thoughts did not typically have a printed date, he might have had the sense to explain more clearly in his advert that he wasn't seeking the kind of diary with dates and just enough room to record important appointments, birthdays and so on, but any genuine Victorian book which could have been, or had been partly used for 'keeping a diary'. It's beyond me why he didn't ask Anne to draft the ad, if he had relied on her to check and correct his diary draft.

I assume that the advert was charged by the word so he wasn't going to waste money by writing War and Peace. His advert was perfectly succinct. One thing it did not appear to be written by was someone who was in possession of a black Victorian guard book and was looking for a replica of it, or something similar.

[David Orsam]

She said she hit the roof when she found out he had ordered the thing and she had to write out a cheque to pay for it. Not very sensible of her to leave a paper trail (and later produce the evidence) if she knew the order was a failed attempt to obtain the raw materials for their joint enterprise.

It's amazing how criminals often slip up in their criminal schemes, Caz. In this case, assuming Mike's affidavit is true, I suspect the slip up was Mike's, with Anne realising what a daft thing it was for him to do to have left a paper trail (using her money). By that time, though, it was too late, the diary was ordered.

[David Orsam]

And yet you won't consider anything that doesn't suit your theory, even if it's also perfectly possible

Can you give me an example of me not considering something (let alone "anything") that does not suit my theory?

[David Orsam]

So 'tis pity his sensible wife didn't draft the ad for him to make sure they couldn't end up with the one bearing the year of 1891.

I don't understand this.

Firstly, you have taken my sentence "But obviously he's not going to write his Maybrick Diary in a diary bearing the year of 1890" and you have substituted the key phrase "write his Maybrick Diary in" for "end up with one". This completely changes the meaning because my point was that Barrett would have removed any signs that the diary was an 1891 diary before presenting it to Doreen. Obviously. So he would happily have written his fake Diary in either an 1890 or 1891 diary, as long as the diary did not bear those years due to those years having been obliterated by him.

Secondly, as I have already said in an earlier post, my understanding is that the advertisement failed to achieve its objective and Barrett had to resort to instructing a book finding company to get him his diary which is how he ended up with the 1891 diary.

[Iconoclast]

I don't understand this.

Honestly David, you remind me of me. I should probably admire your stoic defence of the Barrett-as-Hoaxer theory for that very reason.

It should be testament to the doomed hopelessness of your argument that the Barretts hoaxed the thing that people do seem inherently hostile to the possibility of it.

There's only one person in the world thinks the journal is authentic (that's me, incidentally, guys, if anyone isn't keeping up here) and literally billions (probably trillions when you include Martians, etc.) assume and/or believe it is a hoax. But so few seem to feel the Barretts were the protagonists in the hoaxing.

You'd get so much more traction if you accused someone like Gandhi of hoaxing the thing, you really would.

Hope this helps, mate.

Ike

[David Orsam]

It should be testament to the doomed hopelessness of your argument that the Barretts hoaxed the thing that people do seem inherently hostile to the possibility of it.

Do you mean Caz?

I don't think that her hostility to the possibility of my argument is any kind of testament to the "doomed hopelessness" of that argument.

If my argument really was hopeless then someone should be able to provide a straightforward and comprehensible explanation for Mike's acquisition of that Victorian diary with blank pages.

I'm still waiting.

[Iconoclast]

Do you mean Caz?

I don't think that her hostility to the possibility of my argument is any kind of testament to the "doomed hopelessness" of that argument.

If my argument really was hopeless then someone should be able to provide a straightforward and comprehensible explanation for Mike's acquisition of that Victorian diary with blank pages.

I'm still waiting.

And - like I say - you remind me of me.

[David Orsam]

And - like I say - you remind me of me.

I'm quite sure you flatter yourself.

[Iconoclast]

I'm quite sure you flatter yourself.

I'm sure you're right.

Ike

[John G]

Personally speaking, John, I couldn't care less who forged the diary: whether it was Mike Barrett, Tony Devereux, Uncle Tom Cobley or A.N. Other. My only interest is whether it was written by Maybrick or not, and thus whether Maybrick was Jack the Ripper or not. But what we are faced with is Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit in which he explains how it was forged and who did it. I've been exploring on this forum whether his account his plausible. What I have concluded is that, adjusting the dates to be consistent with the purchase of the 1891 diary, what he says would appear to be plausible. There are many hypothetical possibilities but I can't see why I should favour any of them over what Barrett says happened.

Hi David,

I've no doubt that he had some involvement. However, he subsequently withdrew his original confession, so he therefore wasn't consistent over what he said happened.