One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

You said that Barrett agreed to buy this blank diary on March 26 1992 to write his own "Jack the Ripper's Diary" for insurance reasons, and yet I think Keith can confirm that Barrett didn't write in it at all.

I didn't say this at all - you present it as if I said this was what actually happened when I was merely proposing it as one of two possible reasons (because Orsam had said I never provided one). This is what I actually said:

"So, what does he think is a logical and clever action to take to pre-empt the possibility of losing his priceless memoir? Well, whether we or anyone else would have done differently, he thinks it would be useful to have a second Victorian record within which he would ideally (but not categorically) need at least 20 blank pages. Why would he need at least 20 blank pages? I don't have any difficulty coming up with two perfectly plausible reasons (despite RJ's deception, above). The first was in case he wanted to copy some or all of the scrapbook text into the copy to overcome the challenge of his pursuer quoting from the original (Pursuer: "My copy had doggerel in such as "Blah blah blah"." MB: "That's right. Here it is in my Jack the Ripper diary so I guess I'd better give it back to you with my humble apologies."). The second reason was in case a less specific identification was attempted (Pursuer: "My copy had at least twenty blank pages at the end." MB: "That's right. Here they are in my Jack the Ripper diary so I guess I'd better give it back to you with my humble apologies.").

Having set the stage for your theory, you must dismiss it again with a wave of the hand, as if to say, "Ah well, Barrett instantly changed his mind on seeing it!"

"As if" being the operative term - you see any comment I made as "as if". I do not believe that I have ever said he changed his mind on seeing the 1891 diary when it arrived.

This is sophistry of the most obvious sort, Ike.

There is no sophistry if I didn't say it.

Unkind critics of your theory will notice that you accept that Martin Earl painstakingly described the red diary to Barrett, even down to the fact that it was a "postage stamp," and yet, to use your own phrase, Barrett considered it would be a "mirror image" of the blue-black photo album seen down the boozer!

Earl did not describe it as "postage-stamp-sized" and I don't believe I said he did. I don't recall what I said about a 'mirror image' but my posts have been clear that I consider his request for an 1880-1890 diary to have been a decoy (in whatever form it might eventually appear). You have misunderstood me, clearly.

If Barrett was that irrational, why couldn't he have thought that it would have also worked for hoaxing his original idea, James Maybrick's Diary?

Other than his retrospective claims, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mike Barrett created the text of the Victorian scrapbook.

[Admin]

Virtually every one on this thread is about to earn a 3 month break. The next person who insults another poster on it, will get a six month break. Argue the SUBJECT not the personality flaws of the people you are arguing with.

[rjpalmer]

Erobitha is - of course - absolutely nailed-on with his excellent comments. This seems to have infuriated RJ Palmer so he's gone off on a rather offensive rant.

Your synesthesia is out-of-whack, Ike. Like Caz, you only see red when I post.

In fact, I'm emitting a pale blue. I'm hardly infuriated. In reality, I'm somewhat sleepy.

Your theories have become so sedative that they no longer even contain the traces of human frailty and charm that we sometimes see in eccentric theories about the flat earth, or mankind walking with the dinosaurs, or Elvis Presley still being alive & well and & pumping gasoline in Reno, Nevada.

It's just come across as a great deal of evasion and double-talk.

You said that Barrett agreed to buy this blank diary on March 26 1992 to write his own "Jack the Ripper's Diary" for insurance reasons, and yet I think Keith can confirm that Barrett didn't write in it at all.

Having set the stage for your theory, you must dismiss it again with a wave of the hand, as if to say, "Ah well, Barrett instantly changed his mind on seeing it!"

This is sophistry of the most obvious sort, Ike.

But whatever; if you can get Caz and Steve and Jay to believe you, you have succeeded. It's sometimes better to play to small, appreciative, and non-critical audience than to entertain any hopes of convincing the wider world.

Unkind critics of your theory will notice that you accept that Martin Earl painstakingly described the red diary to Barrett, even down to the fact that it was a "postage stamp," and yet, to use your own phrase, Barrett considered it would be a "mirror image" of the blue-black photo album seen down the boozer!

If Barrett was that irrational, why couldn't he have thought that it would have also worked for hoaxing his original idea, James Maybrick's Diary?

You see, Old Man, your theories aren't even internally consistent.

And maybe someday we'll see what Martin Earl wrote to Caz in his own words.

I think it's time for a break, don't you?

[Iconoclast]

All supposition - jocular or otherwise - is dangerous with two people who will take anything literally if they think they can compromise a more obvious truth by doing so. I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that Mike Barrett was going to write his own diary of Jack the Ripper, were they? I for one am perfectly happy that Mike Barrett sought out a decoy for the scrapbook he had just acquired from Lyons or Lyons and Bowling. It's such a simple explanation for everything he did. Despite the desperate attempts of Orsam and Palmer, there are no difficult loose ends which need a bit of creative 'visioning' to explain away. Their own notion - on the other hand - requires us to believe that Mike Barrett was willing to write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's crimes as Jack the Ripper nigh-on two years (1891) after the scallywag had shuffled off (no, seriously, that's what they want you to believe, dear readers); and that Mike thought he could squeeze the 63 pages of text 'on his PC' into a diary the size of one you could buy from your local post office for less than a pound.

Now, simple theory (mine) which neatly explains Barrett's actions on having received the biggest publishing opportunity of the century or complex theory (Orsam, Palmer) which requires Barrett to actively seek out a diary he could not possibly use for a hoax (1889, 1890, or 1891 - take your pick). Which do you favour, dear readers?

[Iconoclast]

Erobitha is - of course - absolutely nailed-on with his excellent comments. This seems to have infuriated RJ Palmer so he's gone off on a rather offensive rant.

"The trouble you face is convincing anyone else to believe it." When has the volume of people who believe any particular theory been any sort of indicator of its accuracy or truth? If that were true, we'd still believe in a God, that the world is flat, that the sun goes 'round the Earth, etc..

I would like to chuck in my twopennyworth here and say that Mike Barrett's attempt to secure a completely irrelevant Victorian diary for a Jack the Ripper hoax is all one needs to know to understand that he wasn't attempting a Jack the Ripper hoax. He very obviously was looking for the security of a decoy diary in the event that he might need it. The extent to which he expected to be successful, we will never know, but it cost him nothing to give it a go.

But then there's the diary he was offered. The best he was offered was a tiny 1891 diary and that's problematic - unless you are Lord Orsam (and presumably his acolyte) who simply decides to create truths where truth is absent by arguing that he believed the 1891 diary had no dates in it. The reality is that Martin Earl has gone on the record stating that he would never seek to sell an artefact to a buyer without first detailing it to that buyer (to avoid later rejections) so that's that. Barrett knew EXACTLY what he was getting and he still got it. Was he - as Orsam and Palmer might want you to believe - absolutely desperate by the end of March 1992 and therefore thought he might attempt his hoax regardless with the postage-stamp, impossible diary or did he no longer think a knock was coming to his door and had lost interest in it? It would be really interesting to know what he would have done had he had to actually pay for it first, but we'll never know that either.

Anyway, let's just get real here - there is nothing whatsoever 'nonsensical' about the notion that Mike Barrett had spotted the potential of the old, difficult to read scrapbook, nor would it be extraordinary if Lyons and Bowling had not realised what they had in their possession (for them to have realised what they had they would have had to read substantial amounts of it including the final page with the Jack the Ripper sign-off and there is no certainty that they would have done so unless you are Orsam or Palmer where the only things that could possibly be true are those things which work for their theory).

When commentators try to use disparaging language to influence you, dear readers, you should immediately balk because you are almost certainly being manipulated. Florence Maybrick's initials are very VERY VERY VERY clearly seen in the Mary Kelly death scene photos but this creates an impossible problem for Orsam and Palmer so they just say, "Nah, there's nothing there and that's that". Orsam even claimed to have an original of the Kelly print as if that meant anything to anyone! Like we'd trust him to actually look properly even if he did! Like Florrie's initials appearing in a COPY was some sort of deviousness on the part of Dan Farson's editors back in 1973! James Maybrick's highly idiosyncratic signature appears very VERY VERY VERY clearly in Maybrick's old gold watch but Orsam and palmer just can't see it. Funny that. Mike Barrett goes looking for a decoy diary in case he is ever asked to hand back the priceless original and Orsam and Palmer are so befuddled by this notion that they literally act like they've both just invested in discount lobotomies - their confusion is quickly reduced by disparaging the mere idea that this may have been Barrett's motivation.

"How dare the evidence point so firmly against our hopelessly cherrypicked theory" they seem to infer with every new post or blog.

They cling desperately to the cherrypicked argument that Mike Barrett MUST have hoaxed James Maybrick's scrapbook despite the evidence that he rather patently did not. Perhaps the trouble they face is convincing anyone else to believe it?

[rjpalmer]

If Ike and I are postulating theories and scenarios based on the premise that Mike was both illogical and a pathological liar, then I would argue it has far more merit than engaging in the above. We might get to to what is the truth and not just use parts of what a proven liar said to try and prop up our own theories.

I'm not using anything Mike said to disprove Tom's nonsensical theory.

Reread what I wrote.

I merely asked if you accepted Mike's explanation, since he at least gave one--unlike Tom.

The red diary Mike purchased from Martin Earl in Oxford is blank. That's an indisputable fact, isn't it?

So why is it still blank if Mike sought it to create his own 'fake' Jack the Ripper diary?

Pathological liar or not, Barrett gives an explanation. He realized it was too small after seeing it.

Tom, by contrast, doesn't have an explanation.

Having come up with this barmy 'insurance' scheme, Tom now has Barrett immediately abandoning the scheme once he lays eyes on the red diary on March 28th. Nary a word did Mike write in his "Jack the Ripper's Diary."

So, to me, it sounds more & more like Tom is endorsing the very events that Mike described in his sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995.

Mike wanted to create a 'Jack the Ripper Diary' but didn't use the red diary when it showed up---because it was ridiculously small and had 1891 stamped on each page.

As far as I can tell, Tom Mitchell and Lord Orsam are all now singing from the same hymn book.

Mike was irrational and a liar. Prove me wrong.

Being a pathological liar is not the same thing as being irrational.

As Yabs rightly noted, Barrett's alleged irrationality just makes him a convenient scape goat for the irrationality of Tom's own theories.

Tom's theory doesn't make sense--so he blames it on Barrett.

And it's not just Barrett. Tom has Bowling and Lyons down as irrational idiots, too. Having found the "priceless" Jack the Ripper Diary under the floorboards of a Victorian mansion, Lyons supposedly waves it around at The Saddle, but it is only Barrett who realizes its economic worth. The others are willing to part with it for five or ten quid.

If you want to believe this extraordinary theory, by all means do so. The trouble you face is convincing anyone else to believe it.

[erobitha]

Ah, I see. Another convenient non-explanation.

Mike still felt the need for this nonsensical 'insurance' on March 26th when he told Martin Earl to forward the book, but immediately 'lost interest' in the insurance when that same blank book actually arrived on March 28th. We know this because Mike never actually scribbled anything---not a single 'Bobo sang for me tonight'--- inside the red diary to create what Ike now refers to as Mike's own "Jack the Ripper diary."

How do you and Ike explain this? Mike's alleged fear of the police and the diary's owner just suddenly evaporated when the afternoon post arrived?

Or do you accept Mike's own explanation?

"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Clearly, Barrett's explanation is credible. Ike's isn't.

Mike also wrote in a sworn affidavit he received the Maybrick diary from his friend Tony Dvereux in a pub. We can all pick and choose which of Mike's statements he made under oath to cherry-pick for our own arguments, but that doesn't mean they are truthful. If anything, we can conclude Mike was anything but truthful. Not one thing he ever said under oath can ever be taken seriously, let alone anything he said not under oath. This is a pastime you and others keep indulging.

If Ike and I are postulating theories and scenarios based on the premise that Mike was both illogical and a pathological liar, then I would argue it has far more merit than engaging in the above. We might get to to what is the truth and not just use parts of what a proven liar said to try and prop up our own theories.

Mike was irrational and a liar. Prove me wrong.

[rjpalmer]

I agree. Mike’s “perceived” need for an insurance policy was for a small window of time. Once it was not needed he lost interest in it. Such as paying for it. Which Anne did in the end.

Ah, I see. Another convenient non-explanation.

Mike still felt the need for this nonsensical 'insurance' on March 26th when he told Martin Earl to forward the book, but immediately 'lost interest' in the insurance when that same blank book actually arrived on March 28th. We know this because Mike never actually scribbled anything---not a single 'Bobo sang for me tonight'--- inside the red diary to create what Ike now refers to as Mike's own "Jack the Ripper diary."

How do you and Ike explain this? Mike's alleged fear of the police and the diary's owner just suddenly evaporated when the afternoon post arrived?

Or do you accept Mike's own explanation?

"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Clearly, Barrett's explanation is credible. Ike's isn't.

[rjpalmer]

You been on the sherry again, RJ?

Sherry? Isn't that something eighty-year-old women drink on Downton Abbey?

I think I knew a Dowling in school. Or maybe it was Downing. I must have been channeling his memory.

[Iconoclast]

Clearly, in your own theory, Barrett beat Dowling and Lyons to the punch. While they spent months mucking around studying the diary and trying to find a way to cash-in on what they assumed was a priceless artifact, Barrett was on the blower to Rupert Crew within minutes of seeing the Diary in The Saddle Inn on March 8th.

You been on the sherry again, RJ?

It was Jim Bowling not Dowling and the crucial date was March 9, 1992.

Just keeping you honest here, mate.

[Scott Nelson]

Mike requesting at least 20 blank pages could have been him thinking he could write his version of the diary in the decoy in case whoever alerted the police claimed there was content in it.

Mike's logic, if you do not know by now, was never the most sound at the best of times. -Erobitha

I agree with this possibility except that Mike intended to turn over his version to Rupert Crew instead of handling it to police as a decoy. Requesting a diary from 1880-1890 may have been a generalization because Mike didn't think "1890" would appear on it. He may have possessed the "Devereux" version for some time before March 1992 and thought he could do better.

[rjpalmer]

And - and here's the rub - you're finally admitting that the diary is the real deal (just not the one Mike Barrett took down to London on April 13, 1992). Nice one, mate!

Not in the least, Ike. Your daft theory is merely a variation of Scott Nelson's idea--there is no need for a 'genuine' diary anywhere in the equation.

Barrett created his own fake 'doppelganger' to replace the equally fake diary that had been knocked-up by Harry Dam or George Grossmith or Gilbert and Sulivan or whomever supposedly had access to Maybrick's floorboards.

How can I or anyone say this theoretical diary Numero Uno is the real deal if it is still in Dowling's or Lyon's sock drawer? You wouldn't be so rash, would you?

Clearly, in your own theory, Barrett beat Dowling and Lyons to the punch. While they spent months mucking around studying the diary and trying to find a way to cash-in on what they assumed was a priceless artifact, Barrett was on the blower to Rupert Crew within minutes of seeing the Diary in The Saddle Inn on March 8th.

He had a huge head start on our electrical thieves.

What a shock Jim and Eddie must have felt when a year later a story appeared in the Liverpool Post, announcing Barrett's own Diary of Jack the Ripper!

They would have instantly known it was a scam, of course, but as Yabs notes in his discussion of the cops on Barrett's doorstep, what could they do about it?

They could hardly come forward with their own original fake diary without admitting to the theft and having it taken from their mitts. Barrett had finessed them.

No, the real fake diary is still out there, Tom, probably in some collector's basement along with a fake Mona Lisa and Lord Lucan's suspenders and the Hope Diamond fashioned out of cubic zirconia.

The mystery of the Maybrick Hoax is solved. Well done.

[Iconoclast]

Well, there we have it, folks.
Tom Mitchell believes Mike Barrett sought a blank or partially blank late Victorian Diary from Martin Earl in Oxford in the weeks before coming to London in order to write his own Jack the Ripper Diary.
Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this?
And we have been told by the authors of Inside Story that Earl mailed Mike this 'surrogate' diary on March 26 1992, so it must have been while Mike was eagerly awaiting its arrival that he popped down to the local art shop to obtain a suitable manuscript ink for the project.
But wait. I do sense a problem.
We've been told that the maroon diary is still basically blank and stamped 1891, and with nary a hint of a Jack the Ripper Diary inside it.
This can only mean one thing.
When the diary arrived on or about March 28th, 1992, Mike must have immediately abandoned his plan when he realized the diary sent by Earl wasn't even remotely a convincing 'surrogate' for what Dowling and Lyons must have seen and could describe. After all, not once did Mike put pen to paper inside the maroon diary.
So, it must have been at this point that Mike cast it aside unused and went looking for a more suitable over-sized, blue black photo album at somewhere like Outhwaite and Litherland--a 'surrogate' that would match what he had seen down the pub and what he knew Dowling and Lyons could describe to the police.
My God, Ike. Do you know what this must mean?
You've cracked the case!
Clearly, the Diary as we currently know it IS Mike Barrett's "doppelganger." It explains everything. The texts reliance on Bernard Ryan. Mike's strange ability to come up with the Crashaw quote. The anachronisms. The failure to imitate Maybrick's handwriting. The initial lack of ink bronzing, etc.
What we are looking at is Barrett's "doppelganger."
The real diary is still out there somewhere. Probably in the hands of Lyons or Dowling.
Well done, Ike. Well done.

Well, that would be a veritable turn-up for the books, RJ, but one I guess which would not entirely disgrace the dusty surfaces of my bookshelves. Barrett sees the original and is thus prompted to write the decoy doppelgänger red alert siren klaxon etc. version after nipping down to Outhwaite & Litherland on March 31, 1992, and managing miraculously to purchase the very dab he had sought out from Martin Earl a month earlier. Well, that would certainly cork us all!

And - and here's the rub - you're finally admitting that the diary is the real deal (just not the one Mike Barrett took down to London on April 13, 1992). Nice one, mate!

Who had that Jack the Ripper diary last? I gave it to you. Who do we bill for this last hour? RJ Palmer, I guess! [Thank you and my apologies to the scriptwriters of The Firm.]

[Iconoclast]

It’s nothing to do with your reply’s that are arguing your point of view after I’ve posted Ike.
It’s to do with being told, “shame on you” when I do post

Maybe you shouldn’t be so patronising to your “dear readers” and let them make up their own minds

Okay, I'll apologise for the 'Shame on you', Yabs. It wasn't meant to actually offend but - rather - to make a frustrated point.

[rjpalmer]

MB: "That's right. Here they are in my Jack the Ripper diary so I guess I'd better give it back to you with my humble apologies."

Well, there we have it, folks.

Tom Mitchell believes Mike Barrett sought a blank or partially blank late Victorian Diary from Martin Earl in Oxford in the weeks before coming to London in order to write his own Jack the Ripper Diary.

Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this?
.
And we have been told by the authors of Inside Story that Earl mailed Mike this 'surrogate' diary on March 26 1992, so it must have been while Mike was eagerly awaiting its arrival that he popped down to the local art shop to obtain a suitable manuscript ink for the project.

But wait. I do sense a problem.

We've been told that the maroon diary is still basically blank and stamped 1891, and with nary a hint of a Jack the Ripper Diary inside it.

This can only mean one thing.

When the diary arrived on or about March 28th, 1992, Mike must have immediately abandoned his plan when he realized the diary sent by Earl wasn't even remotely a convincing 'surrogate' for what Dowling and Lyons must have seen and could describe. After all, not once did Mike put pen to paper inside the maroon diary.

So, it must have been at this point that Mike cast it aside unused and went looking for a more suitable over-sized, blue black photo album at somewhere like Outhwaite and Litherland--a 'surrogate' that would match what he had seen down the pub and what he knew Dowling and Lyons could describe to the police.

My God, Ike. Do you know what this must mean?

You've cracked the case!

Clearly, the Diary as we currently know it IS Mike Barrett's "doppelganger." It explains everything. The texts reliance on Bernard Ryan. Mike's strange ability to come up with the Crashaw quote. The anachronisms. The failure to imitate Maybrick's handwriting. The initial lack of ink bronzing, etc.

What we are looking at is Barrett's "doppelganger."

The real diary is still out there somewhere. Probably in the hands of Lyons or Dowling.

Well done, Ike. Well done.