One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

Okay, maybe I was too categorical there (I hadn't checked).

Nevertheless, I don't think everyone who wrote copperplate only wrote copperplate.

But everyone who has a hand and a pen gives away their identity by merely looping their letters in a certain way, at a certain angle, etc. What of this in terms of the diary versus Maybrick's documented writing?

Cue the tumbleweed and the lonely, ominous church bell.

[Sam Flynn]

Nevertheless, I don't think everyone who wrote copperplate only wrote copperplate.

That's a fair assumption, and you're probably right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was it a tale written in 60+ pages of a document?

Of course not ...

I wasn't making a point there Ike. Just mentioning 'the fairies.'

Regards

Herlock

[Mike J. G.]

I wasn't making a point there Ike. Just mentioning 'the fairies.'

Regards

Herlock

You were quite right in mentioning it, as I feel that there should be more discussion of hoaxes when talking about the diary. It puts things into perspective. As earlier, it was brought up that it seemed odd that nobody would come forward re: the diary and its actual provenance, but when we look at other hoaxes throughout history, we see that literal decades can pass before any such thing happens.

Hoaxes are something I'm very interested in. One thing that we tend to see, is that even when the weight is stacked against these hoaxes, there will always be a get-out clause for believers. There will always be those to bat away inconsistencies and repeat overly tired points in attempt to make the pieces fit, like snapping the corner from a jigsaw puzzle piece.

People still argue over the moon landings, so that tells you how strongly and persistently some conspiracies and hoaxes latch onto our culture.

The very notion of this mysterious "Jack the Ripper" character is proof of our love for mystery, romanticism, and a wish for things to be more dramatic and fantastical than they appear to be in our regular mundane world. The diary is a fine example of this need for us to seek out imaginative conclusions to things. Wouldn't it be great if this man, possibly the most notorious killer in history, actually wrote a diary and explained everything that we ever wanted to know? Wow! Wouldn't it also be amazing if Loch Ness really did contain a prehistoric monster?! Wow.

[caz]

I used to work in Quiggin's on School lane and I know the Post Office well, and you'd have a solid point if it wasn't called "the Post Office Tavern", as opposed to "the Poste House" as is written in the diary, IIRC.

That's the reason that the Gore's directory doesn't mention a "Poste House," because it didn't exist then. This is why when I inquired at the library in town, I wasn't successful in being shown any Poste House pub.

If the diary had talked about James taking refreshment in the Post Office Tavern, we'd have a different kettle of fish entirely.

But doesn't everyone use nicknames for their local in conversation or personal jottings, Mike? I refer to mine as 'the Rise', or 'the Rising', but its proper name is The Rising Sun. In 1888, the post house would only have been a generic term for former taverns that had once served as post houses. One wouldn't expect to find these in a directory as 'the Post House', any more than one would see 'the Pub' or 'the Boozer' in the Yellow Pages. The individual tavern was identified by the name over the door at the time, be it the White Hart, the Pig & Whistle, the Post Office Tavern or the Old Post Office. Any former post house under any other name could have been called 'the Post House' by its regulars. And given the misspelling in the diary of 'post haste' as 'poste haste', this one could have been written down as 'the Poste House'.

Also, I'm not sure if you've actually been in that Irish bar on Lime street, but nobody worth their salt would call it terrific! lol. It's a bloody dive, it only serves standard lager and Guinness and is frequently in trouble with local authorities over its poor hygiene and bad clientele. The infinitely better Irish bar that everyone frequents is on the corner of Wood street, where you can buy a pint without being offered a line of coke from a pock-marked teenager from Granby.

Must have gone downhill since I was there, Mike. Live music, Beatles covers, very friendly, young and old alike mixing and dancing our socks off. No trouble on the two occasions we spent an evening there. Would have been 2004 and 2008. Mind you, I don't go looking for trouble and rarely find any.

Can anyone confirm that this establishment was known locally as the "Poste House?" Because I can't, which is why I said I can't find any mention of any Poste House being in Liverpool during this period. I'm not sure who this local is that you're referring to, but some details on where to find any reference to this establishment being known as the Poste House would be nice, along with a correct date for the pub on School lane.

Two sources, Mike. My informant's initials are TC, but he'd be about 80 by now if he's still with us. Robert Smith's informant was the then landlord of Rigby's, but I can't recall his name if I was ever told it.

What do you mean by a 'correct date' for the pub on School Lane? There has been an inn there from at least as far back as 1800. How far back did you want to go?

It seems more likely that the writer of the diary really did mean the Poste House, and was lacking in his/her research, as I've mentioned previously, their research is vastly overrated, as they lifted most of their ideas from about 3 books in total.

Again, feel free to believe whatever you like, Mike. No hard feelings.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Many people mention the Murder, Mayhem and Mystery series when discussing the diary's obvious lifting of material, but I rarely ever see anyone mentioning Liverpool Soundings, where the writer of the diary quite obviously lifted the info on the National where May/Flo had a bickering contest and where the winning horse was detailed, among other small details.

Quite obviously, Mike? Then what are you still doing here, and for that matter, what is anyone still doing here? And why are two conferences this year bothering with any of it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, I guess it depends on how badly you'd like to believe in certain things. It seems pretty obvious that considering Barrett lent a copy of MM&M to Devereux, that Barratt likely also had Liverpool Soundings, as these books were widely available in shops all over Merseyside during the 80s and 90s, I myself have all of them, as do a good many people I know who're interested in local history or local folklore.

Considering most of the info in the diary consists of pieces from these two books, I'd say its safe to assume that the writer was quite obviously reading them for inspiration.

To argue otherwise is up to you, but again, it's all down to what you choose to believe. I don't think the diary is as big a mystery as some people do, I think it was an obvious joke played by a Scouser for the sake of having a bit of a giraffe, and it worked, cos here we are...

Did you know Mike Barrett? Either way, do you honestly believe he was the 'writer' who planned and executed the diary for a bit of a giraffe?

Honestly??

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

None of the diary-talk is based on much other than rumour and fiction.

I'm with you there, concerning most of the stuff posted on the boards by people who fondly imagine Mike's confessions were anything but fiction.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This strikes me as an exercise in futility. What does it prove?

This is kind of like those Bigfoot believers who ask people to recreate the Patterson Gimlin Film in order to "prove it wasn't a hoax," ultimately ignoring the fact that this isn't how science works and attempting such a thing would prove absolutely sod-all.

So while Mike dearly wanted to show the world that he had created the diary, you don't find it a trifle odd that he couldn't produce something that bore any resemblance to it? If he had managed to produce a piece with broadly similar phrasing and handwriting, would you still be saying it proved absolutely sod-all? The object wasn't to "prove it wasn't a hoax", but to see if Mike could have been the author, as he was claiming at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I've said before, I'm not saying that the diary is genuine but what I will say is this; I'm more likely to produce a previously unpublished Mozart concerto than Mike Barrett was to forge the diary.

Regards
Herlock

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Good to see that the argument is slowly moving on from "Is the diary genuine?" to "when and by whom was it fabricated?"

The Times, 9th September 1993, reported that "25 experts have examined the diary and found no substantial reason for rejecting it."

Who were the 25 experts?

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

As I've said before, I'm not saying that the diary is genuine but what I will say is this; I'm more likely to produce a previously unpublished Mozart concerto than Mike Barrett was to forge the diary.

Regards
Herlock

What do you base that assumption upon? Did you know the man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you base that assumption upon? Did you know the man?

If the diary is a forgery, and it might well be, I just don't personally prescribe to the view that it would have been an easy task. I didn't know him Observer as you probably guessed. I've seen film footage of him and read about him. Everything seemed to show an unstable kind of guy and not particularly bright. It's just the impression that I've gotten of him over the years.

Just an opinion.

Regards
Herlock

[Iconoclast]

If the diary is a forgery, and it might well be, I just don't personally prescribe to the view that it would have been an easy task. I didn't know him Observer as you probably guessed. I've seen film footage of him and read about him. Everything seemed to show an unstable kind of guy and not particularly bright. It's just the impression that I've gotten of him over the years.

Just an opinion.

Regards
Herlock

You are very perceptive, Herlock. This was not a hoax created by Mike Barrett.

Actually - tee hee - it's not a hoax at all ...

[caz]

Producing a fake "diary" is easy, but writing out the text in convincingly forged handwriting is a major undertaking, beyond the capability of anyone but a specialist. Even adopting a pseudo-script not intended to resemble anyone in particular's handwriting, just something other than your usual hand, and to do so consistently over a large amount of text, is quite a feat.

So why 63 pages, Gareth? And if it simply must run to 63 pages, why not remove them carefully from your genuine Victorian scrap book and source an ancient typewriter for the job?

I presume from what you say above, you would similarly describe it a 'major undertaking' and 'quite a feat' for Mike or Anne to have penned the entire text in a convincingly disguised hand that didn't betray the slightest characteristics of their normal handwriting?

Who do you think wrote the thing out before handing it over to Mike and has defied all subsequent attempts to identify him/her?

Love,

Caz
X