One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

For clarification, I believe Mike was a habitual liar. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes unintentionally but the truth was a stranger to Mike. I have never deviated from that assessment. My point is others on your side of the argument place great weight on his affidavits. I never have.

I'm not paying a lot of mind to his affidavits as none of it is really here nor there.

Mike went about reading about Maybrick, went about locating Victorian scrapbooks, and randomly came up with a supposedly legit Victorian diary that:

he got from Eddie

he got from Anne

he got from Tony

There's no actual reason for anyone to have invented any other story of origin than the actual one.

[Mike J. G.]

Clearly bells are ringing in your head but there is no connection to his ad and the materialisation of the actual scrapbook. The only “evidence” that surrounds the history of where the actual scrapbook comes from is from master forger Mike himself who claims he purchased it in 1990. Two years before this ad. An ad that produced a useless 1891 diary. These are your facts. Everything else is opinion.

Where’s there’s smoke and all that? But there isn’t always a fire.

I'm not sure how you can claim that there is no connection between Mike Barrett actively seeking out a Victorian-era scrapbook with blank pages and Mike Barrett producing to a publisher a Victorian diary supposedly written by local Scouse poison victim James Maybrick, confessing to be Jack the Ripper.

It's a pretty big connection.

[Mike J. G.]

Thankfully we live in a world where “oh come on!” is not enough to convict anyone. You need a bit more than circumstantial evidence and that applies on both sides.

There are potential legal consequences if Eddie ever properly agrees with my theory being the truth. It is in effect theft. Paul Dodd would have a legal claim on the ownership of the scrapbook as it was stolen from his property. Which means it’s current owner may lose all rights to it.

I see it more like Shrodinger’s Scrapbook. I am interested in the truth and many things make it near impossible to achieve.

Mike forging it is not the truth. Neither is Anne. So if it did get under the floorboards of Battlecrease, how, when, who and why? I am interested in that, everything else takes us to dead ends.

There's a lot more than oh come on here, though, obviously.

What are the actual legal consequences that Eddie can expect to have thrown his way? He has already claimed to have found and removed said diary, passing it to Barrett after having it mysteriously vetted by an unknown person at an undisclosed location at "Liverpool University", beating rush-hour traffic on a busy Aigburth road to do so after finding a phone and randomly arranging said meeting with this unknown person based on very, very little. He then, after being savvy enough to arrange a meeting at this random university with an unknown person who has never ever come forward or been named, decides to just hand it over to Barrett for no reason at all.

Mike and/or Anne forging it is the only truth that is available, I'm afraid. There is literally no evidence to suggest it was penned by anyone else.

[erobitha]

This is something I find confusing... People on here are at the same time, claiming Mike cannot be trusted, and then they're also saying that his affidavits should be trusted because he swore to them. It's a kind of cherry-picking the parts that support our own conclusions and ignoring the rest.

That Mike might lie under the oath of a religion he may well have not given a flying potato about isn't much of a mind-blower, IMO.

You said yourself that the scrapbook was an 1891 version, didn't you? Mike might have been on the lookout for more than one, just to get it right. Occams Razor is all about how the simplest solution is often the correct one.

For clarification, I believe Mike was a habitual liar. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes unintentionally but the truth was a stranger to Mike. I have never deviated from that assessment. My point is others on your side of the argument place great weight on his affidavits. I never have.

[erobitha]

The reasons for Mike buying a diary that didn't fit with his plan are plentiful, whereas the reasons for him buying a Victorian diary in the first place, are not.

Is it possible Mike couldn't land a diary that fit with his needs on the first try? Absolutely. But again, why on earth was he even buying a diary to begin with? I've seen no credible explanation for this other than "he wanted a point of reference," which is frankly baffling and explains nothing.

If you present the world with a recently-found Victorian diary and it is shown that you were actually trying to locate a blank Victorian scrapbook around the same time, alarm bells should be ringing in the heads of all and sundry.

Clearly bells are ringing in your head but there is no connection to his ad and the materialisation of the actual scrapbook. The only “evidence” that surrounds the history of where the actual scrapbook comes from is from master forger Mike himself who claims he purchased it in 1990. Two years before this ad. An ad that produced a useless 1891 diary. These are your facts. Everything else is opinion.

Where’s there’s smoke and all that? But there isn’t always a fire.

[Mike J. G.]

Yet in his sworn affidavit he claims he bought the scrapbook in 1990. Why wait two years to buy a diary if he already had what he needed?

I am taking Mike JG’s logic of using Occam’s Razor. Mike B said he bought the scrapbook, which apparently to some was under oath and thereby sacrosanct, in Jan 1990. An advert was placed looking for a Victorian Diary in March 1992. If we take these chain of events on face value then what happened here?

If he already had the scrapbook why did he need a diary?

This is something I find confusing... People on here are at the same time, claiming Mike cannot be trusted, and then they're also saying that his affidavits should be trusted because he swore to them. It's a kind of cherry-picking the parts that support our own conclusions and ignoring the rest.

That Mike might lie under the oath of a religion he may well have not given a flying potato about isn't much of a mind-blower, IMO.

You said yourself that the scrapbook was an 1891 version, didn't you? Mike might have been on the lookout for more than one, just to get it right. Occams Razor is all about how the simplest solution is often the correct one.

[erobitha]

It amazes me that you can claim Mike isn't to be relied upon but then seemingly are quite happily swayed by many dodgy provenances, the joke of diary itself in all its grandiose pulp fiction, complete with red herrings, and the fact that there's literally nobody else who could've or would've possibly bothered to pen it.

Mike was a bloke who sought out a Victorian scrapbook and then magically appeared out of a pub with not only a diary written by James Maybrick, a guy Barrett had apparently been reading about, but also a tell-all tale that solved the greatest serial killer mystery of all time...

And you're willing to give Mike a pass because he told many different stories, didn't spell like Stephen Fry and enjoyed a few ales. Amazingly, it's quite often people who tell tales that end up...telling tales, if you get what I mean.

Eddie and the tin theory has frankly no validity when you consider how absolutely preposterous his story is about going to Liverpool university to meet a mystery professor who apparently went missing right after that meeting and was lost to the sands of time, not to mention how Eddie thought it'd be a good idea to take this potentially old and valuable historic artifact to the pub to just hand over to yarn-spinner and drinker, Mike Barrett for safekeeping. I mean, come on now.

Thankfully we live in a world where “oh come on!” is not enough to convict anyone. You need a bit more than circumstantial evidence and that applies on both sides.

There are potential legal consequences if Eddie ever properly agrees with my theory being the truth. It is in effect theft. Paul Dodd would have a legal claim on the ownership of the scrapbook as it was stolen from his property. Which means it’s current owner may lose all rights to it.

I see it more like Shrodinger’s Scrapbook. I am interested in the truth and many things make it near impossible to achieve.

Mike forging it is not the truth. Neither is Anne. So if it did get under the floorboards of Battlecrease, how, when, who and why? I am interested in that, everything else takes us to dead ends.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Ero,

Why buy an 1891 diary? That's debatable, it's obfuscating the far more important point, namely why did he attempt to buy a blank diary in March, placing the request shortly after contacting Doreen?

Far too much time is given to arguing about the description given to Mike, could he have returned it and what not, and it's all a bit moot really.

We know, without doubt, that soon after telling Doreen he had acquired the 'Diary of Jack The Ripper', Mike attempted to buy a blank Victorian diary. Whether he obtained one or not, or bought an unsuitable one is completely irrelevant. His intention was there. And both he and Anne kept that detail quiet. That's suspicious right? Man who claims to have as yet unrevealed Victorian diary tries to secretly buy blank Victorian diary. And just to reiterate, it does not matter a bit that he bought an 1891 diary. He wanted a blank one. Before revealing the "real" one.

As far I can gather, the best defence for this conundrum is that he wanted a blank diary to gauge the price of the 'diary' in his possession. Because that makes sense. That'd be like someone offering me a never before seen George Orwell manuscript, and me buying a blank 1930's exercise book to hash out the price. It's ridiculous. Of course, if I contacted a publisher claiming to have in my possession a handwritten, never before seen George Orwell novel, then after gaining interest in said novel, I went out to buy a blank 1930's exercise book, that might be seen as suspicious, right? Well, it's exactly the same concept.

It's the Bookseller advert that counts.

You hit the nail on the head. The fact that Mike was trying to locate such an item is something that, IMO, cannot be ignored, but apparently is...

[Mike J. G.]

Why would Mike buy an 1891 diary? Pretty sure even Mike was bright enough to know Maybrick was pretty well dead by then.

You might want to revisit the dates of when he tried to buy the above and when he claimed to have bought the scrapbook, alongside when he spoke to Doreen. I’d be keen to get your version of events of how you think things played out.

The reasons for Mike buying a diary that didn't fit with his plan are plentiful, whereas the reasons for him buying a Victorian diary in the first place, are not.

Is it possible Mike couldn't land a diary that fit with his needs on the first try? Absolutely. But again, why on earth was he even buying a diary to begin with? I've seen no credible explanation for this other than "he wanted a point of reference," which is frankly baffling and explains nothing.

If you present the world with a recently-found Victorian diary and it is shown that you were actually trying to locate a blank Victorian scrapbook around the same time, alarm bells should be ringing in the heads of all and sundry.

[Mike J. G.]

I love your inimitable style Mike. You strike me as a no-nonsense Scouser who shoots from the hip and says what he sees. Whilst I admire your commitment to your own sense of logic, you have made more leaps than Kris Akabussi. Which is perfectly your right.

I do not believe the scrapbook is a modern hoax penned by the Barrett’s. It doesn’t mean that is the only outcome or else it is was penned by Maybrick. There is a whole myriad of other scenarios in between I cannot rule out. If you think Mike was the creative talent that wrote the scrapbook then more power to you. I believe him and his wife were incapable. Which has as much validity as your feeling that they were.

What is that saying about opinions....

Well we're all entitled to our own opinions, but as I enjoy saying quite a bit in a sort of Arthur C. Clarke way, is "we're not entitled to our own facts."

The thing is, the diary definitely exists, we know that. We also know that the person who brought it into the light was Mike Barrett, the same Mike Barretts who had been searching for a blank Victorian scrapbook.


Now, if Eddie Lyons removed it from Riversdale road, then he can't corroborate it. As far as I'm aware, the story of him finding the actual diary, as opposed to something/anything else, is hazy and frankly none of the parts about him taking it to any university department are either realistic, feasible, or corroborated by anyone that supposedly spoke to them or met them there. I don't believe anything of note was found in the house at all.

As for Anne having it in her family for decades... There's literally zero evidence to support that idea. If it'd been in her family, she'd have made it known long before, no doubt, but she didn't... Funny, that.

This idea that Eddie/Anne/Tony gave it to Mike to inspire him to pen something of his own is absolutely mouth-gapingly silly, like hoarding a secret and unseen Van Gough drawing in the loft and only bringing it down for little Jimmy to have a go at tracing for his school art project. To even give credence to this particular suggestion actually eliminates brain cells in the heads that think it.

So there's two alternatives...

Mike, the bloke what presented it in the first place, the same bloke people claimed wasn't a writer and yet literally was, the same bloke who actively sought out and located a Victorian scrapbook with blank pages and then miraculously found a diary written by Maybrick claiming to be none other than Jack the Ripper, actually wrote or had a part to play in the writing of said diary...

Or, a totally unknown person for totally unknown reasons decided to pen it and then bury it at Jim's house/give it to Anne/pass it to Tony... (lol) and somewhere along the way everyone involved totally forgot how they came to be in possession of it. Seems... hilariously unlikely.

Given the red herrings in the diary that suggest it isn't any older than when it was found, and given the totally unavoidable issue of Mike quite literally looking for a Victorian scrapbook as a supposedly really really real Victorian diary surfaces with totally absurd content... You should all be able to connect the dots, imo.

The huge problem so many people have here, is their naive inability to accept that Mike Barrett was capable of pulling this off...seemingly based on little more than him not being good at spelling and telling a lot of porkies. I've no idea where this notion that being crap at spelling means you can't be a competent writer came from, as Mike literally was a paid writer, and you can Google the amount of dyslexic writers that live and breathe as examples of successful writers who clearly need caffeinated editors on hand to sort things out.

People's trust in character is often remarkable, as is their distrust. It's nature, in a way...

"My granddad said he saw a ghost in the old factory he worked in, and if you knew my granddad, you'd know he wouldn't make that up."

"The policeman said he saw it so he can't be lying."

"Well he just looked odd so I wouldn't be surprised if he did it, he was a weirdo."

The only reasonable conclusion one can make in this entire saga is that Mike Barrett came up with the idea and executed it, or he did one or the other and Anne did the other bit. Either way, the Barretts should be clear suspects in the writing of this clearly nonsensical diary, yet people are willing to believe in silly provenances and magically mysterious authors just because Mike doesn't float their boat enough... Says a lot about the entire Ripper subject, to be honest. People ignoring average suspects in favour of grandiose characters just...because...

"Ted Bundy couldn't be a killer, he's just a good-looking nice young man who studied law."

"Roger Patterson couldn't have faked the Bigfoot film, he was just a simple cowboy with cancer, even FX artists say that it couldn't be a suit!"

People are shills. It's what keeps the killers deep in victims and rubes deep in debt to hucksters.

There's a lot to suggest Mike and/or Anne were behind the diary, and very little to suggest that anybody else was. The fact that some people just don't like that is what will prevent them from ever being able to turn the page and move on. Your granddad really did see that ghost, he's your granddad after all, he couldn't be mistaken or lying, he's your granddad!

[Mike J. G.]

So we have a forger assumed to be Mike Barrett because an advert was placed in March 1992 for a diary that proved no use to anyone by Mike Barrett. When the said forger decides to tell all in 1995 under a document of oath, the same forger claims he obtained the scrapbook that went onto the become the “diary” in 1990. So Mike simply cannot be relied upon by any side of the argument. But this advert apparently shows intent to forge even if it didn’t product the document used? So why advertise for a diary if he already had the scrapbook?

The challenge you and others have with this is that you cannot rely on Mike to provide concrete evidence of anything. The advert itself is evidence of his own inconsistencies with the truth. That’s about it. It is not a smoking gun he forged it or even if he had intent. It wouldn’t stand up in court. Circumstantial at best.

Eddie and the tin theory still has much validity as Mike being the master forger - I can agree with you on that.

It amazes me that you can claim Mike isn't to be relied upon but then seemingly are quite happily swayed by many dodgy provenances, the joke of diary itself in all its grandiose pulp fiction, complete with red herrings, and the fact that there's literally nobody else who could've or would've possibly bothered to pen it.

Mike was a bloke who sought out a Victorian scrapbook and then magically appeared out of a pub with not only a diary written by James Maybrick, a guy Barrett had apparently been reading about, but also a tell-all tale that solved the greatest serial killer mystery of all time...

And you're willing to give Mike a pass because he told many different stories, didn't spell like Stephen Fry and enjoyed a few ales. Amazingly, it's quite often people who tell tales that end up...telling tales, if you get what I mean.

Eddie and the tin theory has frankly no validity when you consider how absolutely preposterous his story is about going to Liverpool university to meet a mystery professor who apparently went missing right after that meeting and was lost to the sands of time, not to mention how Eddie thought it'd be a good idea to take this potentially old and valuable historic artifact to the pub to just hand over to yarn-spinner and drinker, Mike Barrett for safekeeping. I mean, come on now.

[erobitha]

So we have a forger assumed to be Mike Barrett because an advert was placed in March 1992 for a diary that proved no use to anyone by Mike Barrett. When the said forger decides to tell all in 1995 under a document of oath, the same forger claims he obtained the scrapbook that went onto the become the “diary” in 1990. So Mike simply cannot be relied upon by any side of the argument. But this advert apparently shows intent to forge even if it didn’t product the document used? So why advertise for a diary if he already had the scrapbook?

The challenge you and others have with this is that you cannot rely on Mike to provide concrete evidence of anything. The advert itself is evidence of his own inconsistencies with the truth. That’s about it. It is not a smoking gun he forged it or even if he had intent. It wouldn’t stand up in court. Circumstantial at best.

Eddie and the tin theory still has much validity as Mike being the master forger - I can agree with you on that.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yet in his sworn affidavit he claims he bought the scrapbook in 1990. Why wait two years to buy a diary if he already had what he needed?

I am taking Mike JG’s logic of using Occam’s Razor. Mike B said he bought the scrapbook, which apparently to some was under oath and thereby sacrosanct, in Jan 1990. An advert was placed looking for a Victorian Diary in March 1992. If we take these chain of events on face value then what happened here?

If he already had the scrapbook why did he need a diary?

Hi Ero,

The same sworn affidavit that makes "Lord Orsams awesome auction" laughable? We can't pick and choose when Mike is reliable. Of course, the Gray interview tapes would help, but let's face it, they're not appearing any time soon.

But let's remove shonky dates and Mike's questionable assertions of facts, which he patently can't be relied upon less his auction might be genuine, it's there in the affidavit, let's look at verifiable facts. Fact, Mike contacts Doreen in March, claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper. Fact, he then tries to obtain a blank diary from the Victorian period, after claiming to have said Diary. Fact, no one at all claims to have or had seen said diary before this.

Man claims to have Diary of Jack the Ripper, tries to obtain a blank Victorian diary, then produces a "diary" in a scrapbook with a load of missing pages and a scrap of a later photo. With dubious handwriting which is not in any way debated as not being Maybricks. Said procurer is pathological liar, but claims of a 1990 obtaining are not questionable, but later, provable claims of trying to obtain a blank diary for forgery purposes are nonsense, because he's a pathological liar.

Regardless of affidavits, Mike appears in March, claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper. He then tries to obtain a blank Victorian diary. He then produces a shonky scrapbook with pages removed and not Maybrick's handwriting.

Let's remove ourselves from his affidavits, and his later claims, which are all apperently nonsense. Prior to any of this, at the time he contacted a publisher, and received interest, he then went out to buy a blank Victorian diary. Nevermind the 1891 red diary, it matters not a jot. He lied to Scotland Yard about source material. He, and his wife, kept schtum about buying a blank diary. But the sworn affidavit of a drunken pathological liar is fine when he mentions earlier dates. Not so when it concerns independently verifiable sources, like Earl, or the auction.

And it's worth pointing out, the Bookseller ad was independently verified. Not by Mike. Alluded to, in his affidavit, but verified independently. It's a fact. Unlike Eddie and the Battlecrease biscuit tin. The one that you couldn't fit a scrapbook in.

Maybe Mike wasn't the mastermind behind the hoax, but sure as **** he was responsible for unveiling it.

[erobitha]

Hi Ero,

Why buy an 1891 diary? That's debatable, it's obfuscating the far more important point, namely why did he attempt to buy a blank diary in March, placing the request shortly after contacting Doreen?

Far too much time is given to arguing about the description given to Mike, could he have returned it and what not, and it's all a bit moot really.

We know, without doubt, that soon after telling Doreen he had acquired the 'Diary of Jack The Ripper', Mike attempted to buy a blank Victorian diary. Whether he obtained one or not, or bought an unsuitable one is completely irrelevant. His intention was there. And both he and Anne kept that detail quiet. That's suspicious right? Man who claims to have as yet unrevealed Victorian diary tries to secretly buy blank Victorian diary. And just to reiterate, it does not matter a bit that he bought an 1891 diary. He wanted a blank one. Before revealing the "real" one.

As far I can gather, the best defence for this conundrum is that he wanted a blank diary to gauge the price of the 'diary' in his possession. Because that makes sense. That'd be like someone offering me a never before seen George Orwell manuscript, and me buying a blank 1930's exercise book to hash out the price. It's ridiculous. Of course, if I contacted a publisher claiming to have in my possession a handwritten, never before seen George Orwell novel, then after gaining interest in said novel, I went out to buy a blank 1930's exercise book, that might be seen as suspicious, right? Well, it's exactly the same concept.

It's the Bookseller advert that counts.

Yet in his sworn affidavit he claims he bought the scrapbook in 1990. Why wait two years to buy a diary if he already had what he needed?

I am taking Mike JG’s logic of using Occam’s Razor. Mike B said he bought the scrapbook, which apparently to some was under oath and thereby sacrosanct, in Jan 1990. An advert was placed looking for a Victorian Diary in March 1992. If we take these chain of events on face value then what happened here?

If he already had the scrapbook why did he need a diary?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Why would Mike buy an 1891 diary? Pretty sure even Mike was bright enough to know Maybrick was pretty well dead by then.

Hi Ero,

Why buy an 1891 diary? That's debatable, it's obfuscating the far more important point, namely why did he attempt to buy a blank diary in March, placing the request shortly after contacting Doreen?

Far too much time is given to arguing about the description given to Mike, could he have returned it and what not, and it's all a bit moot really.

We know, without doubt, that soon after telling Doreen he had acquired the 'Diary of Jack The Ripper', Mike attempted to buy a blank Victorian diary. Whether he obtained one or not, or bought an unsuitable one is completely irrelevant. His intention was there. And both he and Anne kept that detail quiet. That's suspicious right? Man who claims to have as yet unrevealed Victorian diary tries to secretly buy blank Victorian diary. And just to reiterate, it does not matter a bit that he bought an 1891 diary. He wanted a blank one. Before revealing the "real" one.

As far I can gather, the best defence for this conundrum is that he wanted a blank diary to gauge the price of the 'diary' in his possession. Because that makes sense. That'd be like someone offering me a never before seen George Orwell manuscript, and me buying a blank 1930's exercise book to hash out the price. It's ridiculous. Of course, if I contacted a publisher claiming to have in my possession a handwritten, never before seen George Orwell novel, then after gaining interest in said novel, I went out to buy a blank 1930's exercise book, that might be seen as suspicious, right? Well, it's exactly the same concept.

It's the Bookseller advert that counts.