One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Why don't you take your one-note violin and play it on another website?

Well I could, I suppose. Hmmmm. I'm sensing that would please you no end if I did, though?

Let me ponder that one for a wee while ...

[Iconoclast]

Why don't you take your one-note violin and play it on another website?

Can you offer me some assurances that you won't also be on it if I do?

[Iconoclast]

When I wrote Society's Pillar, I used about 30 books, some new, some old, many of which didn't make the cut into the final brilliantly outstanding critique which demonstrates unequivocally that James Maybrick was Jack the Spratt McVitie. But I missed one out! And I've just realised it. I purchased Tom Wescott's 'Ripper Confidential' because 1) I like Tom and he seems to like me which counts rather high in my book despite my demonic destructive instincts, and 2) the blurb promised that Tom would not resort to selling his book by creating some facile new candidate for Jack but that it would focus on the actual evidence, much of it not previously published. So I'm kicking myself for having purchased it then forgotten to read it, but kick myself no more (I shall leave that to Flynn and his like)! Once I've finished reading the Lee Childs which I'm now bored of but only half way through, I shall step into Westcottworld of fact not fiction and see if I can eek out any snippets which would add to my burgeoning reputation as the Greatest Ripperologist of All Time and stick it or them into my Magnus Opal for your delectation. Hope you don't let me down, Westy!

[erobitha]

I am a believer in the diary. I cannot believe how after all these years it stands up to everything thrown at it. Most forgeries get more obvious as time passes, this document does the opposite and seems to gain more and more credibility as the years pass.

Let's address some of the issues surrounding the diary:

• Provenance. Which is questionable at best. Some bloke in a pub gave it to a struggling bit part journalist in the hope he would do something with it. Obviously that story simply cannot be believed or accepted. Time sheets proving Eddie Lyons, known to Mike Barratt and who was also a regular at The Saddle pub, was present the day the floorboards were lifted at Battlecrease House and the same day the publisher was called.
• The other diary. Mike Barratt's ad looking for a diary of the same age was for comparison so he could check himself for anything obvious as initially he thought he might be the victim of a forgery / practical joke. I believe what he was able to source was maroon in colour. The Maybrick document is not maroon
• Mike's affadafits. An alcoholic struggling with the intense spotlight the diary caused, which also saw the breakdown of his marriage. Insecurity, jealousy, rage and bitterness dominated Mike's thoughts. A journalist plied him with a bottle of whiskey he would told him whatever he wanted to hear in thats state. And he did. Rescinded in the cold light of day.
• The ink. Barely dried on the page according to one forensic test. Did you know under floorboards is a great place to keep documents and wine in fact, because the temperature can remain cool & stable. Many document finds of similar age (and older) have shown similar results:
  

  https://www.cnn.com/style/article/van-gogh-papers-london-brixton-tate-britain-intl-gbr-scli/index.html

  
  Also no conclusive proof over the nigrosine issue due to a question mark over sodium content
• Handwriting. Comparisons have been against Maybrick's will (which was mostly transcribed by another hand on his death bed and not his own writing - misspelling of his own daughter's name is a clue to this) and his marriage certificate. Here's the kicker. People with mental illnesses such as multiple personality disorder often change their handwriting style, depending on the state of mind they are in. They don't even have to be severe, even someone suffering from the effects of something like syphillis would exhibit similar symptoms. He was diagnosed with malaria in America, but there is strong enough evidence to suggest he actually caught syphillis from an American sex worker. Double whammy to hate American whores. Doctors for middle class men would write alternative diseases on their medical records as to not ruin a gentleman's reputation. The treatment for malaria was the same as syhphillis. Ironically, infecting patients with malaria was later used to cure syphillis before penicillin was invented. I digress...
• Psychological mindset. It's been accepted by a number of well respected psychologists that to write in the style that this document was written in has to be one of two things. 1) An extremely gifted creative writer who is able to understand such a complex psychology of a disturbed individual they are able to mimic the nuances of the thought patterns to an a high level. Focus on banal trivialities and minimalising the brutal detail of the murders is one such nuance. Not impossible to do, but highly unlikely the Barratts could pull this off. 2) It was by the hand of Jack the Ripper
• It is not a diary. This is true. The content of the document also does not resembles that of a diary. It is a stream of consciousness over time. Very much like a scrap book in fact. The first 20 pages would indicate there was other streams of consciousness but removed as the document does not start from a standing start. There was more prior to the pages that remained. Most likely discovered by an eagle eyed clerk and those pages removed by Maybrick, or even the clerk.
• The Poste House. Many post offices in Liverpool had bars in them at the time. And many had informal names. Like The Poste House.
• Clues & references. Many clues and references could ONLY have been known in recent years with the advent of technology and deep investigation of archives across America and the UK. One such clue "match box empty" could not have been known until 1987 at the absolute earliest. Which means it is genuine or a very modern forgery.
• Time & Place. Unlike every other major suspect, James Maybrick does not have ANY alibis for the dates of the canonical murders. We know so much already about this man's life and movements, surely at least on one of the murder dates / times he has some kind of alibi? No he doesn't.
• Middlesex Street. James knew Whitechapel very well because of his sham marriage to Sarah-Ann Robertson and the fact she lived in the area and he worked in the area for a number of years - he built up good knowledge of the locality. In terms of the epicentre of geo profiling, how lucky was the forger to pick Middlesex Street which is in the heart of the most likely habitual zone?

This forger has exhibited luck like no other forger in the history of forgery.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Arthur Conan Doyle

[Iconoclast]

Hi Erobitha,

I could hardly agree with you more if I jolly well tried. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that you are actually my sock puppet! (He or she is not, by the way, good dwellers of the Casebook’s dark closes and alleyways.)

It'’s all gone a bit quiet since the ‘famous’ people disappeared off to the pub on one almighty bender and never came back. Where is Caz, Keith Skinner, Simon Wood, Trevor Marriott, Stewart Evans? If they are not careful, they will hand the study of Jack to the likes of you and me - and I think we know whose case we’'ll be tentatively putting forward in that event!

Anyway, well done on having the courage of your conviction and speaking your mind. I need to do a little more of that myself, I suspect ...

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

[*]The other diary. Mike Barratt's ad looking for a diary of the same age was for comparison so he could check himself for anything obvious as initially he thought he might be the victim of a forgery / practical joke.

Hi Erobitha. Pardon me, but Barrett asked for "at least twenty blank pages." If this was "for comparison," why the need for 20 blank pages? What can a person learn from 20 blank pages that he can't learn from two or three blank pages, or even one blank page? Might there be another explanation?

Hi Ike. In reading your passage on the watch, I felt like I was reading the novel Trilby, without any mention of Svengali, or the "Scottish Play," without any mention of Lady Macbeth. Someone seemed to be conspicuous by his absence, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

Good luck with your project.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Erobitha. Pardon me, but Barrett asked for "at least twenty blank pages."

Yes, it doesn't make sense in the context of the bog standard rational mind, and of course it leads one to an apparently 'obvious' conclusion. There is at least one plausible alternative, but that requires us to really understand the mind of Mike Barrett, and that could take a while.

In counter to your inferred suggestion that he was seeking a document to hoax a diary from, there are two points to consider:

Why on earth did he seek a diary from 1880-1890? Only 1880-1889 could wortk at a stretch but rather obviously not 1890. The mysterious mind of Mike Barrett again or a clear sign that he wasn't seekign to use it as a platform for his planned hoax?

And, why only twenty blank pages when he must have already written the draft document and must surely have realised that twenty pages would not be adequate for an A4-sized book that eventually held some 65 pages of scrawl?

These questions have to be adequately addressed if you wnat to labour the 'twenty blank pages' mystery.

Thank you for your good luck wishes - always appreciated.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

Unfortunately, I am attempting to wean myself from all things Maybrick, but since I'm here I might as well respond.

Your counter-argument balances gingerly on the ambiguous definition of the word 'page.' Did Barrett's bookseller mean '20 blank pages (sheets)? Or did he mean 10 blank sheets, which would allow for 20 pages of writing? I think the former is the more likely, don't you? So 20 blank sheets (double-sided) would give Barrett 40 blank sides to work with, that is, if he was unfortunate enough to end up with a diary with the absolute minimum of blank pages that he asked for.

You may recall that Keith Skinner was kind enough to confirm that the typed manuscript of the Maybrick journal found on Mike's word processor was under 40 pages in length. I forget the exact number; I think it was 29 pages. Lord Orsam, as you call him, noticed that the typed version of the Diary in one of Harrison's books was exactly 40 pages in length. So no real mystery or enigma for us skeptics as to why Mike would want 20 blank sheets.

As for 1880-90, it is somewhat surprising that this bothers you; is it not true that the actual Diary has a flap missing from the inside cover? And did not Barret claim that it was a manufacterer's tag that he was forced to remove with a Stanley knife, as it seem to point to a date incompatible with the lifespan of one James Maybrick, cotton broker, of Liverpool, England? Has this been correctly reported?

Finally, speaking of that typed manuscript on Barrett's computer, I believe Lord Orsam was expecting its eventual delivery to this website by Keith or James, so if you ever come across it, perhaps you can post? Or perhaps it will be revealed in the upcoming disclosures, alluded to elsewhere. Enjoy your day.

[Iconoclast]

Your counter-argument balances gingerly on the ambiguous definition of the word 'page.' Did Barrett's bookseller mean '20 blank pages (sheets)? Or did he mean 10 blank sheets, which would allow for 20 pages of writing? I think the former is the more likely, don't you? So 20 blank sheets (double-sided) would give Barrett 40 blank sides to work with, that is, if he was unfortunate enough to end up with a diary with the absolute minimum of blank pages that he asked for.

Even if it were true that 20 pages meant 20 sheets (therefore 40 pages), was the typed document which so conveniently was about 40 pages A4 or some smaller size? I have no doubt whatsoever that it was A4. The diary Barrett stupidly purchased was nowhere even close to A4 so it was a fool's errand from the off to ever think he could condense 40 pages of typed text into a diary so small. It all sounds plausible enough, but it just doesn't ever end up ringing true.

As for 1880-90, it is somewhat surprising that this bothers you; is it not true that the actual Diary has a flap missing from the inside cover? And did not Barret claim that it was a manufacterer's tag that he was forced to remove with a Stanley knife, as it seem to point to a date incompatible with the lifespan of one James Maybrick, cotton broker, of Liverpool, England? Has this been correctly reported?

So Barrett was willing to accept 1890 as he was psychic and knew that he would be able to remove any reference to the year. Interesting notion. Most diaries do not have a single reference to a year. Perhaps it was different in Victorian times? Of course, Mike had to know this otherwise he wouldn't have sought a diary from potentially 1890. But if all of this were true, why confine himself to just that ten year period, I wonder? Why not request a diary from 1837-1901 (I'm being facetious with the years, but the point still holds)?

You opine that "the actual Diary [may have] a flap missing from the inside cover". From where did you summon this gem? I've been following the Maybrick case for over twenty years and I don't recall reading of this. That's not to say it isn't the case, of course. It would be helpful if you could cite frm where this claim arose though. I find that ofte the most extraordinary claims are made about the scrapbook and they turn out to be no more than smoke and mirrors when you get up close.

I think we all understand that the most obvious solution to the mystery of Jack the Ripper will face a ceaseless line of questioning regardless of the possibilities. Maybrick has suffered such slings and arrows as few would recover from. Those of us who understand that the case has been solved by the scrapbook, the watch, and the wealth of circumstantial evidence have a duty to remind all what love did to that gentle man born.

[rjpalmer]

You opine that "the actual Diary [may have] a flap missing from the inside cover". From where did you summon this gem? I've been following the Maybrick case for over twenty years and I don't recall reading of this.

Opine? I think not, old boy.

This 'gem' is summoned from one of the main sources: Mike Barrett's signed confession of 5 January 1995. He describes it and explains its presence. And I believe I am correct in stating that the Rendell report, or Rendell's later book, confirmed there was indeed a missing square or "flap" of paper (possibly not the right word) conforming with what may have been either a manufacturer's or retail's mark inside the front cover. But if you doubt my memory, I recommend you research it for yourself. I give you Mr. Michael Barrett:

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out."


Elsewhere Mike alluded to hacking at the cover and unwanted papers with a Stanley knife.

[Iconoclast]

This 'gem' is summoned from one of the main sources: Mike Barrett's signed confession of 5 January 1995.

Honestly rj, any attempt to cite Michael Barrett as the hoaxer of a Maybrick scrapbook requires significantly greater proof sources than J R Hartley himself. The Bible is the word of God. Who says so? The Bible says so. Et cetera.

Summoning-up the bits you like from a deeply troubled and error-strewn 'confession' from a man soggy of brain isn't what I had in mind. I was exxpecting independent verification that a datable mark had unequivocally been strategically removed at some point. Citing the World According to Mike Barrett is not quite the 'unequvocal' of my dreams, mate.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Soggy of brain Bongo may have been, yet he's the only one who has given a reasonable explanation for this disfigurement noticed on the inside cover of the (possibly and plausibly) Edwardian scrapbook.

I have never laid eyes on the relic myself, nor apparently have you, so we must rely on the words of those who have. Even photographs cannot be trusted.

This from the pen of Rick Cobb, founding member of the H Division Crime Club:

“"There is indeed a dark red discoloured corner of the inside cover of the diary. This for some reason escaped Mango books scanning process for Robert Smith’s latest book.”" July, 2018.

Fare thee well.

[Iconoclast]

Fare thee well.

And fare thee well too, rj.

For the record, for those who are all too easily persuaded by an unsupported theory, the scrapbook is as Victorian as it is - apparently - Edwardian; and simply because the possibility of fraud has not been ruled out does not then mean that fraud is afoot.

But fare thee well to foreign lands, rj. It was brief, but interesting.

Ike

[Purkis]

If Barrett did write the diary, then it's an extraordinary literary achievement. I've often read the claim that it would be easy to achieve with a few reference books. That may be so with regard to (most of) the historical content, but it ignores the writing. If the diary is a hoax, whoever is responsible created an accurate and convincing portrayal of a late Victorian drug addicted cotton trader and his descent into psychosis. The creation of such a consistent 'voice' in what for a contemporary writer is almost a second language could only be the work of a professional writer of some note.

[Sam Flynn]

The creation of such a consistent 'voice' in what for a contemporary writer is almost a second language could only be the work of a professional writer of some note.

The writing is lame, formulaic and repetitious, with even the grammar leaving a lot to be desired - the author doesn't even know when to use "me" or "I" properly.