One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Observer]

By the way that false leg was really really false but not as false as the Maybrick journal

[StevenOwl]

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

Don't worry - he's brown bread and that.

[Observer]

Don't worry - he's brown bread and that.

Hey Steven, I thought owls only came out at night? It's midday here. Have you ever considered changing your name to lark, the early bird catches the worm.

And believe me Mike Barret opened a huge can of them when he foisted this joke journal onto the World.

[Observer]

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 ...

Right. Have fished out my copy of M...errr Paul Feldmans "The Final Chapter". I diligently removed to page 144, and low and behold the excerpt to which you refer above is not on that page. Your'e not quoting from the Mickey Mouse paperback edition are you? You cheapskate.

Anyhow have spent an amusing flick through the pages, you know I vowed never to return to this volume, and can't find the page in question. It's been a bit of a chuckle, me being decended from good Scottish stock, I normally spend Sunday mornings having a good hoot, at "The Broons, and "Oor Wullie" in the Sunday Post, but Paul Feldmans book is a damn sight funnier.

However, lets look at two definite facts. One, Anne Barret asked of Mike Barret whether he had nicked the journal. Two she stated that she had given Tony Deveraux the journal to give to Mike, in order to boost his self esteem. Strange way of boosting his self esteem then, accusing him of nicking the bleedin thing. It stinks to high heaven. I believe that Anne Graham was telling lies when she stated that the journal had been in her family for generations. I beleive she was acting naturally when she accused Mike Barret of nicking it. I believe it is a modern forgery concocted by Mike Barret, and others. The watch could reveal all.

[Observer]

Don't worry - he's brown bread and that.

Yes Steven I'm aware of that.

[caz]

Hi HS

The "old hoax" theorists are only too pleased when Mike Barret is painted in a light like the one you use above. Did any of them know Mike Barret before he brought the journal into the public domain? Mike Barret apparently submitted articles too a children's music publication, and had them accepted. I believe the picture you paint of Barret were brought on as a result of the machinations surrounding the journal, in the early days. In short don't judge a book by it's cover. A word on Anne Barret. Mark Feldman remarked that Anne Barret took to the research he set her like a duck to water, hinting that she was no stranger to the methods of research. Also, let's face it we're not talking about a piece of classical litrature here, more Mills and Boon.

Who's Mark Feldman? What is 'litrature'? And Mike's surname is spelled Barrett.

Incidentally, I understand Anne Graham's book was ghost written.

Many people take to these boards like ducks to water, but that says nothing about the quality of their efforts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

I have read many of your posts here but I still am uncertain of your position regarding the diary. Real or faked?

c.d.

Faked IMHO - but not IMHO in recent decades, and not IMHO for fame or fortune. And the Barretts had bugger all to do with its creation, IMHO.

Perhaps I should make that my signature because I must have posted it scores and scores of times.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It wasn't until 1987 that the police documents confirmed the true placement of Mary Kelly's torn breasts. Until then, the enduring myth was that they had been left on the bedside table. Therefore, either it was hoaxed before 1987, or Maybrick simply couldn't remember what he'd done with them (which seems unlikely given their almost ritualistic positioning) and aped off the newspapers.

Hi Harry,

Yes it's interesting that modern hoax conspiracy theorists will argue that Mike Barrett found his 'tin match box empty' in a post-1987 ripper book [by Martin Fido IIRC], idiotically plonking it into the diary verbatim. But they have no satisfactory explanation for how he managed to miss the correct positioning of Kelly's busty substances or what his thinking was on the matter.

The diarist had "Sir Jim" read about his latest before plumping for the table, then later recalling that he had thought of placing them by her feet. That would seem a good way of hedging one's bets if multiple sources gave conflicting information and the diarist wasn't certain which source was the more reliable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I believe the "old hoax" camp are conveniently staying well clear of the work done by David Orsam regarding the use of the phrase "one off" as written in the journal.

I didn't stay 'well clear' when all this was being discussed, 'conveniently' or otherwise. I just didn't, and still don't, have total confidence in the argument that nobody could possibly have thought of a 'one off instance' of anything before the first surviving written examples of this exact phrase start to appear. Since there are documented examples of a 'one off job' and a 'one off standpoint' from the first decade of the 20th century [with no accompanying explanation for the perplexed reader as to what the hell this might have meant ] I have no problem with this or similar 'one offs' having crept quietly into usage many decades before the magic date of a 'modern' hoax with Mike Barrett at centre stage.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Simon Says...

I believe the "old hoax" camp are actually in the "stay out of jail" camp.

What an odd thing to say, Simon.

For me, none of the scenarios proposed makes much sense when examined minutely. An old hoax merely seems the least 'impossible' solution, because we are looking for a hand that was neither Maybrick's nor that of any named individual from that elusive 'nest of forgers'.

Whoever penned the damned thing was no amateur at keeping their name out of it. They must have played a guaranteed "stay out of jail" card.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

knickers in a twist

Who's Mark Feldman? What is 'litrature'? And Mike's surname is spelled Barrett.

Incidentally, I understand Anne Graham's book was ghost written.

Many people take to these boards like ducks to water, but that says nothing about the quality of their efforts.

Love,

Caz
X

And many don't read all of the posts submitted. I had already corrected my mistake,(before you're rather mocking input,) regarding my failure to provide Mr Feldman with the correct christian name appeared. Also, do you correct all poster's who submit spelling mistakes, or only the ones who consider Mike Barratt to have been the instigator behind the production of the Maybrick journal?

Also, why have you mentioned Anne Barrett's book? I haven't mentioned Anne Barrett's book.

[Observer]

I didn't stay 'well clear' when all this was being discussed, 'conveniently' or otherwise. I just didn't, and still don't, have total confidence in the argument that nobody could possibly have thought of a 'one off instance' of anything before the first surviving written examples of this exact phrase start to appear. Since there are documented examples of a 'one off job' and a 'one off standpoint' from the first decade of the 20th century [with no accompanying explanation for the perplexed reader as to what the hell this might have meant ] I have no problem with this or similar 'one offs' having crept quietly into usage many decades before the magic date of a 'modern' hoax with Mike Barrett at centre stage.

Love,

Caz
X

Bully for you ! You, yes you, may not have any problem with the phrase "one off" creeping into the language at a much earlier date than is being suggested. You would say say that wouldn't you. However, there's a whole lot of difference between what you believe to be truth and the reality that it was not used in the context as used in the journal until the mid Twentieth Century at the earliest.

[Iconoclast]

Bully for you ! You, yes you, may not have any problem with the phrase "one off" creeping into the language at a much earlier date than is being suggested. You would say say that wouldn't you. However, there's a whole lot of difference between what you believe to be truth and the reality that it was not used in the context as used in the journal until the mid Twentieth Century at the earliest.

Is it truly such a stretch to venture that Maybrick (or someone of his generation) wrote the expression 'one-off instance' when but 15 short years later, someone documented a 'one-off standpoint'?

When Mr Orsam raised his One-Off Instance (proper noun!) drama, I kept my powder dry. Whenever the 'diary' seems defeated, the journal survives - you simply have to wait until the ship sails over the horizon. The ship on this occasion was someone's very thoughtful use of 'one-off standpoint' in 1904. On another occasion, it was Livia Trivia saving the day when she showed that Michael Maybrick wrote a canny line of verse when all around him were telling him he could only write music.

There have been others. There will be others.

But the journal just goes on.

Nice one.

Ike

[David Orsam]

Is it truly such a stretch to venture that Maybrick (or someone of his generation) wrote the expression 'one-off instance' when but 15 short years later, someone documented a 'one-off standpoint'?

I can't believe that you are impressed by the appearance of 'one-off standpoint', something which has no connection whatsoever with 'one-off instance'.

The phrase 'one-off standpoint' appeared (in 1903 actually) within a very technical series of articles within a technical journal about patternmaking. On the fact of it, it meant no more than viewing something from the standpoint of a 'one off' but the article itself I do not fully understand (as I have said) and I don't understand the references in the article to "drawing one off" and various other phrases.

It was many months ago that I set out the problems with understanding this article and not a single person has explained it. You need to have an intimate knowledge of patternmaking to understand what the author was talking about. It is by no means clear that he is using the expression in the same way we understand it today.

The point that I have repeated over and over again is that while the expression "one off" can be found in technical journals in the early twentieth century, or in speeches in the context of manufacturing, design, patternmaking etc. in that time period, not only does it not seep into the general language until much later but it is much later than that that it is ever used in a metaphorical sense to apply to a person or an occasion.

It's why you will never find a person in the nineteenth century being referred to as a "one-off" despite this being extremely common from the second half of the twentieth century onwards, including today.

You won't find "instances" being referred to as one-offs either. The author of the Diary is absolutely unique in this respect, if he was writing in 1888-89.

It's why I maintain that it is unhistorical to believe that the Diary was written in 1888 or 1889. The forger made a mistake and used an expression that did not exist in that time period. It is absolutely clear due to the evolution of the English language.

[caz]

And many don't read all of the posts submitted. I had already corrected my mistake,(before you're rather mocking input,) regarding my failure to provide Mr Feldman with the correct christian name appeared.

I do read 'em all, Observer, but one of my many failings is that I am always slightly behind and tend to reply to posts as I see them, rather than read them all then go back to those I wish to address, so I will have to try harder. Apologies.

I also tend to mock badly written posts when the poster in question mocks their preferred hoaxer for producing a badly written diary. It just seems ironic to me and you are by no means the worst offender. For my money, our hoaxer was far more interested in sending up "Sir Jim" as a social climbing dullard than making him look like the gentleman and scholar the real James arguably never was. But clearly others disagree and see this as 'a point against the diary', whatever that means.

Also, why have you mentioned Anne Barrett's book? I haven't mentioned Anne Barrett's book.

Am I not allowed to, unless someone else mentions it first? I never knew. I may have read more into your 'Mills and Boon' comment [see below] than I should have, and if so I apologise again.

A word on Anne Barret. Mark Feldman remarked that Anne Barret took to the research he set her like a duck to water, hinting that she was no stranger to the methods of research. Also, let's face it we're not talking about a piece of classical litrature here, more Mills and Boon.

It seemed you were talking about the research Feldy set her for her book The Last Victim, because I didn't know, or didn't recall that she did any of the research for his book. I also thought your literature comment was in the same context, and based on a theory that Anne composed the diary text - hence my comment about her own book being ghost written.

Love,

Caz
X