One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

How would Maybrick have known to cite only five canonical victims when the prevailing assumption until about the 1950s was that there were seven?

Catherine Eddowe's possessions were not published until 1987 so from where did Maybrick copy the line 'tin match box empty'?

Was his reference to Kelly's missing heart ('No heart, no heart') just an utter coincidence? This information also wasn't published until 1987.

That's just three examples that I can think of off the top of my head as to why if Maybrick wrote the journal then Maybrick was Jack the Spratt McVitie.

If the handwriting doesn't bother you, what specifically (for you) makes the journal a hoax rather than an authentic document of the crimes by the murderer himself? (It would be great if your answer wasn't simply an iteration of old lines such as 'It's so melodramatic, it's obviously not real', as if slaughtering at least five sex workers was not a reasonably melodramatic act.) What specific things about the journal are (for you) the reason why you don't accept it as authentic?

Cheers,

Ike

Hello Ike

There is nothing specific for me. That's why I'm uncomfortably on the fence about the diary. The 'it's so melodramatic...' has never worked for me to be honest. Wasn't it David Canter who seemed to think it was genuine?
To be honest Ike I havent read anything about the diary, except what's been posted on here, for years so I'm no expert. I recall being impressed by Feldmans book. I remember thinking 'surely there's too much going on here, family links, the watch etc.' That's why I'm wary of debating the content. If I get time I might have to really read up on the topic.

Regards
Herlock

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike

There is nothing specific for me. That's why I'm uncomfortably on the fence about the diary. The 'it's so melodramatic...' has never worked for me to be honest. Wasn't it David Canter who seemed to think it was genuine?
To be honest Ike I havent read anything about the diary, except what's been posted on here, for years so I'm no expert. I recall being impressed by Feldmans book. I remember thinking 'surely there's too much going on here, family links, the watch etc.' That's why I'm wary of debating the content. If I get time I might have to really read up on the topic.

Regards
Herlock

Read my History vs. Maybrick - email me for the original. It's the end of it.

[Iconoclast]

Remember Anne Barret, changed her story as to the journal's discovery several times.

I'm unaware that Anne Barrett changed 'her' story even once. The story she told to Feldman was the only version of her story.

What is it you know that the record does not know?

[Observer]

I'm unaware that Anne Barrett changed 'her' story even once. The story she told to Feldman was the only version of her story.

What is it you know that the record does not know?

When Mark Feldman met the Barrets for the first time Anne Barret remarked to Mike regarding the journal "oh Mike did you steal it?" Then of course she stated that she had saw the journal in her father's house in a wardrobe. Go figure.

[StevenOwl]

When Mark Feldman met the Barrets for the first time Anne Barret remarked to Mike regarding the journal "oh Mike did you steal it?" Then of course she stated that she had saw the journal in her father's house in a wardrobe. Go figure.

I for one completely believe Anne Graham's provenance for the Diary. Nothing more than a hunch mind, but I believe her. Of course it still doesn't tell us who wrote it, but for me it does rule out the modern hoax theory.

[Observer]

I for one completely believe Anne Graham's provenance for the Diary. Nothing more than a hunch mind, but I believe her. Of course it still doesn't tell us who wrote it, but for me it does rule out the modern hoax theory.

The why did she accuse her husband of nicking it, knowing full well that she gave it to Tony Deveraux to give to her husband to give him back some self esteem.

[StevenOwl]

The why did she accuse her husband of nicking it, knowing full well that she gave it to Tony Deveraux to give to her husband to give him back some self esteem.

Cos she's a canny devil. So much so that she even kept the truth from Mike. Mind you, I get the feeling he was at the opposite end of the scale to Anne on that front, so maybe not so difficult...

[Observer]

Also, do you not accept the work carried out by David Orsam which proves beyond doubt that the phrase "one off" (as used in the context it was used in the journal) to be a modern phrase?

[StevenOwl]

Also, do you not accept the work carried out by David Orsam which proves beyond doubt that the phrase "one off" (as used in the context it was used in the journal) to be a modern phrase?

I accept that it presents an issue for anyone like me who believes that regardless of who wrote the Diary, it's not a modern document, but it's not conclusive. I'm just waiting for this here Battlecrease provenance of Mr Skinner's to be revealed - that should really put the new/old argument to bed once and for all.

[Observer]

Cos she's a canny devil. So much so that she even kept the truth from Mike. Mind you, I get the feeling he was at the opposite end of the scale to Anne on that front, so maybe not so difficult...

A canny devil? So when she accused Mike Barret of nicking it, she was actually accusing him of nicking it from Tony Deveraux?

[Observer]

I accept that it presents an issue for anyone like me who believes that regardless of who wrote the Diary, it's not a modern document, but it's not conclusive. I'm just waiting for this here Battlecrease provenance of Mr Skinner's to be revealed - that should really put the new/old argument to bed once and for all.

Well I hope it doesn't boil down to the two electricians who tried to con Mark Feldman.

[Scott Nelson]

Who's Mark Feldman?

[Iconoclast]

A canny devil? So when she accused Mike Barret of nicking it, she was actually accusing him of nicking it from Tony Deveraux?

If you read the text of when she said it, the implication is that she was not accusing Mike of stealing the journal but, rather, provoking him to admit he had just implied a(nother) big lie:

Page 144 of Feldman (Paul, not Mark, of course), Martin Howells was questioning Mike Barrett:

'We believe that you got the diary from Tony, but there must be more.'
Mike replied, 'Would you split on a mate?'
Anne's ears seemed to act like a radar. 'What was that?' she asked, as she turned her head away from Paul [Begg], to whom she had been speaking, and towards me [Paul Feldman], who had not said a word. I explained to Anne that we accepted the story of Tony Devereux but felt that if Mike knew that Tony had perhaps bought something that was not quite kosher he would not be able to say so. Anne's response was, 'Did you nick it, Mike?'.

This was classic Mike Barrett, without any regard for the consequences of his comment or even the logic of it, he was in there with 'The Tease', his favourite trick,and one which he foolosihly thought bought him time at the centre of the limelight around the journal. His wife knew her husband well and her 'ears seemed to act like a radar' when she heard one more example of Mike just saying whatever suited him in order to stay in the centre of things. She knew it was hogwash and she called it out by asking him to say whether he nicked it or not. She knew he hadn't and she wanted the lie crushed before it started. No confusion on Anne's part, she knew her husband's Walter Mitty ways and wanted to nail this one before it started.

The alternative view is that her ears pricked up because she thought he was admititing to nicking the journal and that she didn't know either way. This view would make her later story untenable, of course. But I think it is their daughter Caroline who tells us clearly the truth of the matter here. On Page 143, before the incident described above, Paul Begg and Martin Howells had asked Caroline of her recollections of the day Mike came home with the journal and she recalled (she's aged eleven at this point) the day Mike came home with the journal, his pestering Tony, and the row between Mike and Anne over publishing the journal. If we believe that Mike created the journal and created the strange cover story of getting it from Tony Devereux, then we have to believe that he got his precious young daughter to lie for him to back up his story.

Did eleven year old Caroline Barrett lie to back up her dad's story? Or did she simply tell the truth when asked? Either way, Anne Barrett was with her when she told the truth or the lie so if she asked Mike if he nicked the journal because she didn't know if he had, she was thereby stating that her daughter had just lied about Mike pestering Tony about the journal.

Like everything else in this tale, nothing is as clear cut as the casual observer might assume ...

[Observer]

Who's Mark Feldman?

He's an old friend of mine worked at the gas works his father kept pigeons and had a false leg

[Observer]

My apologies to Paul Feldman where ever he may be for continually referring to him as Mark