One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[miakaal4]

Are people saying that someone with the knowledge to hoax the diary and the watch was stupid enough to release them together?

[Scott Nelson]

A forgery is an illegal copy of an original which exists in real-life, whereas a fake is an invented object that has no real-life counterpart.

Thank you Simon. I wrote this years ago on one of the Diary threads.

I read Shirley's hardback book when it first hit the U.S. in November 1994 (even before it was published in the UK, if I understand). One of the first things that struck me was the numerous mentions of (Frederick) Abberline throughout the text. And this was just a few years after the Michael Caine Miniseries was shown in 1988. Abberline's name was rarely mentioned in press reports and books prior to this time. I therefore concluded that the Diary had been produced sometime after the miniseries and the numerous centennial books that followed.

But as I read more and more about Mike Barrett, I thought there's no way he could have written something like that out of the blue. He must have acquired the forged scrapbook from an earlier version (an old hoax) that was taken out of Battlecrease house -- maybe sometime in the early 1980s according to the electrician "Darren" who worked in the Dodd house. This earlier hoax then likely found its way to Gerard Kane/Tony Deveraux, who produced the current scrapbook with quite a few modern embellishments that is currently in the possession of Robert Smith.

But what became of this earlier hoax Diary and what did it contain?

[Harry D]

I did until I actually read the science.

Inconclusive.

[rjpalmer]

I think Paul Begg was the first to come up with the idea of the Diary being an 'old hoax,' but it never made the least bit of sense to me.

Except in very rare instances of political propaganda, literary hoaxes aren't created about contemporary or near contemporary events...for the simple reason that the people being depicted in the hoax are still alive and can dispute the account.

If I were to write the torrid love diary of Maggie Thatcher--today, let alone twenty years ago---it would fail and fall at the first hurdle, because people who knew Thatcher are still alive. There is a wealth of documentation that could disprove anything I decided to invent. The handwriting wouldn't match, either. There are records showing where Thatcher was on given dates, etc., so I would very likely screw-up.

Ditto, an "old hoaxer" faking James Maybrick's diary. If the hoax was created in 1895, or even 1925, people who 'knew better' would still be alive and walking the earth. Thomas Maybrick. Lowry. Florence Maybrick herself. People at the Cotton Exchange that remembered Maybrick's handwriting. People who knew where he had been at the time of the Whitechapel Murders. The 'old hoax' wouldn't have worked, and anyone spending the effort to create it would know it wouldn't have worked.

Literary hoaxes are invented to exploit a gap in the historical record--that's what makes them sensational--and are about events that are far enough removed that they can't be immediately disputed. About events where the documentation is scarce.

That the hoaxer didn't even bother to imitate Maybrick's handwriting indicates that enough time had passed that they were under the impression (false, as it turns out) that no examples were likely to still exist.

Would that have been the case in 1890? 1900? 1910?

[erobitha]

Inconclusive.

Only on the specifics of age, but the the scratches and aged brass particles were conclusively tens of years of age by experts in 1992 and nothing to suggest inconsistency (under the correct conditions) with the LVP. You believe this is a hoax from 1972?

[Abby Normal]

Thank you Simon. I wrote this years ago on one of the Diary threads.

I read Shirley's hardback book when it first hit the U.S. in November 1994 (even before it was published in the UK, if I understand). One of the first things that struck me was the numerous mentions of (Frederick) Abberline throughout the text. And this was just a few years after the Michael Caine Miniseries was shown in 1988. Abberline's name was rarely mentioned in press reports and books prior to this time. I therefore concluded that the Diary had been produced sometime after the miniseries and the numerous centennial books that followed.

But as I read more and more about Mike Barrett, I thought there's no way he could have written something like that out of the blue. He must have acquired the forged scrapbook from an earlier version (an old hoax) that was taken out of Battlecrease house -- maybe sometime in the early 1980s according to the electrician "Darren" who worked in the Dodd house. This earlier hoax then likely found its way to Gerard Kane/Tony Deveraux, who produced the current scrapbook with quite a few modern embellishments that is currently in the possession of Robert Smith.

But what became of this earlier hoax Diary and what did it contain?

I believe "Darren" is using it for a photo album.

good lord

[Abby Normal]

Osram used to make light bulbs, miakaal4.

You've heard of 'that light bulb moment'?

Orsam, on the other hand, thinks he's had a few. Light bulb moments, that is.

Even though his last post here was two years ago, it's like he's never been gone, with all the string pulling.

Just as 'bumbling buffoon' is argued to have been the result of a single individual's 'light bulb moment' from mid 20th century America, copied by countless others who lacked the wit to ever put two such words together, Orsam is still flicking the light switch to make two and two equal five, knowing he can count on fans who can't count.

Love,

Caz
X

hey Miakaal4

heres Lord Orsams website. you can judge for yourself if hes trying to make two plus two equal five.

https://www.orsam.co.uk

[erobitha]

hey Miakaal4

heres Lord Orsams website. you can judge for yourself if hes trying to make two plus two equal five.

https://www.orsam.co.uk

Can I just say, aesthetically it screams 1997. Can I suggest he upgrades to Wordpress to make his website a little more modern? It will require patience to not be jarred by that sepia font on that odd choice of brown background. Don't even get me started on the background wallpaper.

In the words of Oscar Wilde "This wallpaper will be the death of me - one of us will have to go".

I'm sure his content is lovely, but for those reasons alone I cannot invest any meaningful amount of time on that website. He loves to ramble on.

Enjoy x

[Scott Nelson]

If the hoax was created in 1895, or even 1925, people who 'knew better' would still be alive and walking the earth. Thomas Maybrick. Lowry. Florence Maybrick herself. People at the Cotton Exchange that remembered Maybrick's handwriting. People who knew where he had been at the time of the Whitechapel Murders. The 'old hoax' wouldn't have worked, and anyone spending the effort to create it would know it wouldn't have worked.

Well Roger, this is why, possibly, it was hidden in the house somewhere instead of being brought out before the public right after its creation. Who knows what went through the mind of a hoaxer?

[rjpalmer]

Can I just say, aesthetically it screams 1997.

For a moment, I thought you meant the Diary...

But obviously not.

Enjoy!

[erobitha]

For a moment, I thought you meant the Diary...

But obviously not.

Enjoy!

"Yellow Flamingo - they breached the fence again!"

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Can I just say, aesthetically it screams 1997. Can I suggest he upgrades to Wordpress to make his website a little more modern? It will require patience to not be jarred by that sepia font on that odd choice of brown background. Don't even get me started on the background wallpaper.

In the words of Oscar Wilde "This wallpaper will be the death of me - one of us will have to go".

I'm sure his content is lovely, but for those reasons alone I cannot invest any meaningful amount of time on that website. He loves to ramble on.

Enjoy x

I'm not a massive fan of his brown theme, or his tiny writing. And the background is an actual book cover, good lord, the man has no taste.

But it would be folly to judge a book by its cover. Or an old book by its missing pages. And shonky provenance. But I digress, if anyone is serious about delving into all things diary, Lord Orsam is a must read. You don't have to agree, or like some have an "Orsamgasm", but think about his points, be rational. Even our Ike specifically asked Lord O to read and rebutt his brilliant Societies Pillar. If your seriously in favour of Maybrick, or just his watch, read David Barrats articles. Rebutt them on merit. He's not infallible, hell, he's a New Romantic. Hence his time warp website I reckon. The fonts are crap, the content not so. Or is it? Read it, and be your own judge.

Abby put his site up earlier. I'm not going to link to it, or such.

[Scott Nelson]

I believe "Darren" is using it for a photo album.

good lord

Always appreciate your deep-seated thinking on these threads, Mr. Normal.

[caz]

Your attempt at an explanation is quite silly I agree. Who said the person who wrote the scrapbook had no knowledge of the watch? Whether that be Maybrick or not?

I believe they both came from the same place and that is from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House on Monday 9th March 1992. Who put them there I do not know. A bag was also found with an old key inside. The watch and the bag found it's way into the lcoal antiques trade and the scrabook found it's way in to Mike Barrett's hands. The artefacts were seperated by the finder who probably didn't think there was much value in an old watch (that had most likely stopped) or an old bag, but the old book could be worth something - esecially if it was signed by Jack The Ripper. Did James Maybrick put them there or did someone else? I have no idea. If it was a hoax why place them there in the first place?

Maybe some of those questions will get answered over time, but maybe not. Even if the watch is real and the scrabook is a hoax, I accept it does not provide a smoking gun from a historian's perspective. It certainly makes it an interesting one from mine.

Hi erobitha,

What is your source for this bag and old key being found? First I've heard of either, unless my memory is playing serious tricks.

My take is that the gold watch - whenever or wherever it was found and sold on to the jewellers in Wallasey - would have been recognised as valuable, and we know precisely how much Albert Johnson paid the jewellers for it in July 1992, at the same time as Mike was about to secure a lucrative publishing deal for the diary. It's the timing of these two transactions that makes me wonder if they entered the marketplace at the same time, but then went their separate ways.

However, the "old book" would have had little value to its finder, who'd have been advised to get it tested for age and authenticity, so its value could then be assessed as anything from a few quid to priceless.

Thus, the watch was sold to Albert for something like ten times what Mike paid for the diary, assuming this was the same diary that was sold for £25 in an Anfield pub, at some point after 8th March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

What is your source for this bag and old key being found? First I've heard of either, unless my memory is playing serious tricks.

My take is that the gold watch - whenever or wherever it was found and sold on to the jewellers in Wallasey - would have been recognised as valuable, and we know precisely how much Albert Johnson paid the jewellers for it in July 1992, at the same time as Mike was about to secure a lucrative publishing deal for the diary. It's the timing of these two transactions that makes me wonder if they entered the marketplace at the same time, but then went their separate ways.

However, the "old book" would have had little value to its finder, who'd have been advised to get it tested for age and authenticity, so its value could then be assessed as anything from a few quid to priceless.

Thus, the watch was sold to Albert for something like ten times what Mike paid for the diary, assuming this was the same diary that was sold for £25 in an Anfield pub, at some point after 8th March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Let me clarify that the key and the bag is from unreliable online source which has now disappeared. I kept the picture. They claimed in 2003 that in the 90's the below found it's way to an Antiques Dealer in Southport.



I am not a historian nor do i have any desires on being one, so I know it's legitimacy is flaky at best. Hence why I tend to focus more on the watch and scrapbook when discussing such things, but my spidey senses can't help but believe it all came from the same place.

Regards,

Ero