One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Aelric]

Has the diary been published, in full?

Keep an eye on this page on Mango Books. It includes a full reproduction of the diary. https://mangobooks.co.uk/products/th...35415707320480

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi RJ.
I’ve just read that the diary contains 9000 words.
When composing on a word processor it’s set at an A4 page as standard.
There’s 500 words per A4 page with one individual space between words so that equates to 18 pages needed to write the final released version of the Diary without all the odd spaces and paragraphs for poems and rants.
So 20 pages works as a safe requirement to get the story out there with enough editing I guess

What a bizarre coincidence. The transcript of the document Mike received from Eddie, or whoever, that he typed up for clarification purposes, fits the amount of blank pages he requested from Earl. The minimum amount of blank pages. It's just as well he didn't have a crack at transcribing the text to the blank pages, because that might look like he was engineering a hoax...

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ.
I’ve just read that the diary contains 9000 words.
When composing on a word processor it’s set at an A4 page as standard.
There’s 500 words per A4 page with one individual space between words so that equates to 18 pages needed to write the final released version of the Diary without all the odd spaces and paragraphs for poems and rants.
So 20 pages works as a safe requirement to get the story out there with enough editing I guess

Thanks, Yabs. Interesting numbers.

So if one could fit 9,000 words onto eighteen A4 pages, but Barrett's typescript was 29 pages in length, one assumes that he must have used more than double-spacing? I don't know about this particular model of Amstrad, but, back in the day, my old word processor allowed one to use half-line increments: 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, etc. If a writer wanted extra room between the lines (for editing, revisions, etc.) the line spacing could be automatically jacked up to 2.5 or 3.0.

So, theoretically, Barrett's 29 page typescript was only 19-20 pages or so, but ballooned up to 29 if it was printed out with 2.5 spacing.

More later, when I crunch a few numbers.

[rjpalmer]

Has the diary been published, in full?

Yes. Many times. Harrison included a facsimile of it, as well as a full transcript.

But we aren't talking about the diary; we are talking about a typescript of the text that was found on Mike Barrett's word processer, supposedly created for either research purposes, or for use by his agent. Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

The 29 page typescript found on the Barrett's word processor has never been released, but I wonder how long this transcript would be if all the doggerel verse was removed?

20 pages? Maybe a little less?

To continue.

The transcript of the Diary in Shirley Harrison's hardback edition is exactly twenty pages in length (p. 273-292)

Word count per page is misleading, because so much of the text is poetry, and full lines of text can be only one or two words in length.

I count 55 lines per page in Harrison's transcript, for roughly 1,100 lines total, which includes blank lines separating paragraphs, etc.

By contrast, and judging by Mike's research notes, which were printed on the same Amstrad as the typescript, he types about 53 lines per page, so this should have made his typescript fairly close to Harrison’s in length.

But it isn't, it's 29 pages long--9 full pages longer.

I suggested different line spacing might explain this, but thinking it over, it doesn't, and, for the most part, Mike uses single spacing in his research notes.

I think the fact that it is roughly 30% longer is due to the font he is using. Mike’s machine only types out about 55 characters per line, whereas Harrison uses 75-80 characters per line.

This presumably explains why Mike’s typescript was 29 pages long, and Harrison’s only 20.

Where the heck am I going with this tedious observation?

I was musing over David B's hypothesis that the 'diary proper' (the prose entries) indicates one type of knowledge, whereas the 'verse' demonstrates another. The Diarist (the writer of the prose passages) demonstrates nearly no detailed knowledge about the Ripper murders, beyond the bald fact that some women were murdered in London. He /she does demonstrate knowledge of Maybrick's private life, insofar as what could be gleaned from Ryan or Moreland or some other source, but is weak on the Whitechapel Murders. By contrast, as bad as the poetry is, this is where we find the specifics about the murders---almost as if the poetry half (or actually the poetry 40%) was written by a budding Ripperologist, who had some grasp of the basic facts of the case.

Counting lines of text, rather than word count (the only way one can do it, if poetry is contained in the text), 40% of the lines in the Diary are poetry, with the necessary line spacings in between verses.

That means the remaining 60% of the text--the actual prose diary entries--would have used approximately 17 ½ pages of A4 on Barrett’s Amstrad word processor. The actual “diary”—devoid of the doggerel—was less than 18 pages.

The following is speculation, but perhaps the ‘diary’ entries are all that existed of the typescript when Barrett called Martin Earl, looking for 20 blank pages, and the poetry was added later as filler, with a few minor alterations in the text to justify its inclusion. It would explain why Barrett asked for 20 blank pages instead of 30. It could also mean there were two hoaxers, one working on the Maybrick material, the other writing the verse. They then combined their efforts to create the 29 word typescript.

[rjpalmer]

One minor and perhaps final point.

One of the chief stumbling blocks for disbelieving that the Maybrick Diary is a modern hoax is that Mike Barrett was supposedly too dim-witted and too talentless to have conceived and written this complex text.

Yet, Barrett was married at the time, to a woman who would later write a book about the Maybrick case, so for this point to remain relevant, we are also told in no uncertain terms that his then wife, Anne Graham, was too sensible, too practical, and apparently too ethical to have cooperated with Mike, thus she could not have supplied the talent and intelligence that he (allegedly) so obviously lacked.

In short, that a woman wouldn’t stoop to this sort of thing.

True, most famous literary forgers have been male, and we associate forgeries with a number of infamous men: Thomas Chatterton; William Henry Ireland (who forged Shakespeare manuscripts in the 1790s); David Hoffman, the modern forger of “Mormon Murders” fame; the Hitler Diaries forger, Konrad Kujau, a discredited journalist. There have been others.

But, just as a friendly if unwanted reminder, I’d like to point out that a small number of women have been involved in literary hoaxes over the years, though I admit it is rare. Here is a case in point.

Before, during, and after World War II, a Polish woman named Paulina Czernicka made considerable noise in the music world by claiming she had discovered a trove of love letters written by Frederick Chopin. These were sensational, particularly since there were considerable gaps in our knowledge of Chopin’s private life. Eventually, Czernicka signed a book deal based on her marvelous discovery. Her provenance was that she was distantly related by birth to the woman that Chopin had gushed out his most intimate thoughts: Delfina Potoka. These letters, apparently, had been “in the family for years.”

Soon cracks began to appear in Czernicka’s story. She couldn’t produce the original letters, claiming she only had transcripts from a private archive. The location of this archive kept shifting. Her story was deemed suspicious, and the whole thing was finally dismissed as a hoax. Shortly afterwards, the disgraced Czernicka committed suicide.

Even so, and despite every music critic in Poland and France dismissing the letters as fake, and the Encyclopedia of Poland flatly announcing they were obvious frauds, Czernicka still has her supporters. Some even argue that she was murdered by the Polish government to protect Chopin’s good name! (Shades of Feldman’s conspiracy theories? The ‘Chopin’ letters were somewhat tawdry and implied that the composer was an anti-Semite, so there was supposedly a motive for protecting one of Poland’s national heroes).

All of which goes to show that once a hoax has been let loose on the world, bands of dedicated believers may stick to their guns for decades, despite whatever evidence is thrown at them. Thus, the Maybrick Diary may not have sung its swan song, dead though it may be to me, to most of you, and to the world at large.

For those who may be interested, there is a film about the Czernicka affair. If nothing else, the music is good. No accusation intended by the above commentary: just a thought. Ciao.

[MrBarnett]

One minor and perhaps final point.

One of the chief stumbling blocks for disbelieving that the Maybrick Diary is a modern hoax is that Mike Barrett was supposedly too dim-witted and too talentless to have conceived and written this complex text.

Yet, Barrett was married at the time, to a woman who would later write a book about the Maybrick case, so for this point to remain relevant, we are also told in no uncertain terms that his then wife, Anne Graham, was too sensible, too practical, and apparently too ethical to have cooperated with Mike, thus she could not have supplied the talent and intelligence that he (allegedly) so obviously lacked.

In short, that a woman wouldn’t stoop to this sort of thing.

True, most famous literary forgers have been male, and we associate forgeries with a number of infamous men: Thomas Chatterton; William Henry Ireland (who forged Shakespeare manuscripts in the 1790s); David Hoffman, the modern forger of “Mormon Murders” fame; the Hitler Diaries forger, Konrad Kujau, a discredited journalist. There have been others.

But, just as a friendly if unwanted reminder, I’d like to point out that a small number of women have been involved in literary hoaxes over the years, though I admit it is rare. Here is a case in point.

Before, during, and after World War II, a Polish woman named Paulina Czernicka made considerable noise in the music world by claiming she had discovered a trove of love letters written by Frederick Chopin. These were sensational, particularly since there were considerable gaps in our knowledge of Chopin’s private life. Eventually, Czernicka signed a book deal based on her marvelous discovery. Her provenance was that she was distantly related by birth to the woman that Chopin had gushed out his most intimate thoughts: Delfina Potoka. These letters, apparently, had been “in the family for years.”

Soon cracks began to appear in Czernicka’s story. She couldn’t produce the original letters, claiming she only had transcripts from a private archive. The location of this archive kept shifting. Her story was deemed suspicious, and the whole thing was finally dismissed as a hoax. Shortly afterwards, the disgraced Czernicka committed suicide.

Even so, and despite every music critic in Poland and France dismissing the letters as fake, and the Encyclopedia of Poland flatly announcing they were obvious frauds, Czernicka still has her supporters. Some even argue that she was murdered by the Polish government to protect Chopin’s good name! (Shades of Feldman’s conspiracy theories? The ‘Chopin’ letters were somewhat tawdry and implied that the composer was an anti-Semite, so there was supposedly a motive for protecting one of Poland’s national heroes).

All of which goes to show that once a hoax has been let loose on the world, bands of dedicated believers may stick to their guns for decades, despite whatever evidence is thrown at them. Thus, the Maybrick Diary may not have sung its swan song, dead though it may be to me, to most of you, and to the world at large.

For those who may be interested, there is a film about the Czernicka affair. If nothing else, the music is good. No accusation intended by the above commentary: just a thought. Ciao.

It’s a big leap from being of the opinion that a particular woman (Anne G.) would not have stooped to such shenanigans to suggesting that no woman at all would do so. Apart from that dubious introduction, which is worthy of the most slippery of theorists, this is a very interesting post.

[rjpalmer]

It’s a big leap from being of the opinion that a particular woman (Anne G.) would not have stooped to such shenanigans to suggesting that no woman at all would do so. Apart from that dubious introduction, which is worthy of the most slippery of theorists, this is a very interesting post.

I would normally tend to agree, but have you followed the Diary threads? Whenever someone even implies Graham may have helped Barrett, they are dismissed with a wave of the hand and considerable scorn, as if it is even unthinkable. Why it is unthinkable they do not say. But how well do these 'experts' even know Anne, and even if they do know her, why should I accept their judgments about her personality? There are accounts of her behavior in the public record that seem to contradict their swift and easy dismissals.

Yes, I admit I push the envelope, but it has long struck me that considering all the abuse that has been rained down on Mike's head, Anne, despite her own shifting tales, has escaped a similar fate. Unconscious sexism? I dunno. Maybe that is pushing it too far, but even a few "feminist" writers have commented that women are held to a different standard when it comes to criminal cases. Society expects "boys to be boys," but there is no similar catch phrase for women, is there? I think it is worth commenting on, even if people disagree. I'll let it stand.

[rjpalmer]

This unconscious prejudice, if accurate, applies to the Maybrick Case. The argument is that this shrinking flower, this wronged woman, Florence Maybrick, would not have poisoned her husband. Justice Stephen's obvious scorn for Florence, and his charge to the jury, is clear prejudice against her.

Maybe, but I've never been quite as confident as everyone else is that she didn't actually poison the old guy. A woman that I dated years ago told me that the best way to murder someone is to use their bad habits against them; that way, everyone will assume it was an accident. If he's into fast cars, wear out his brake cables; if he shoots heroine, kill him with an overdose, etc.

Maybe Maybrick's death was an accident, or the result of his own destructive habits. It is certainly plausible. Or maybe everyone just assumes the best about a pretty American lady and we're too naïve for our own good.

I'm undecided.

[Abby Normal]

a girl in college once tried to poison me by spiking my beer with anti freeze. needless to say it was the end of our relationship. lol

that being said most criminals ARE male, i hope idont get accused of being sexist for saying that

[c.d.]

a girl in college once tried to poison me by spiking my beer with anti freeze. needless to say it was the end of our relationship. lol

that being said most criminals ARE male, i hope idont get accused of being sexist for saying that

So I am guessing you gave her the cold shoulder?

c.d.

P.S. Ok. That was bad.

[Abby Normal]

So I am guessing you gave her the cold shoulder?

c.d.

P.S. Ok. That was bad.

lol. no, not bad at all cd . quite funny! but stop-youre killing me ; )

[rjpalmer]

I am slightly puzzled that Martin Fido, who had an impressive knowledge of literature, would find the publication of Edmund McCoy's novel, 'Blood of the Fathers,' so coincidental, it having appeared shortly before the emergence of the Maybrick Hoax.

Surely, it is a very common literary device in mystery novels to have old diaries, secret journals, etc., and, of course, writing a work of fiction in the form of a journal is as old as the hills.

Valerie Marin's novel 'Mary Reilly,' which retells the tale of Jekyll and Hyde through the undated journal of his servant, made a splash only a year or two earlier, 1990. I don't know if it was widely read in the UK, but it was certainly made into a horrible film.

To my knowledge, four different 'Ripperologists' have been privately accused over the years of having taken part in the Maybrick hoax, not counting Feldy. Only one of these allegations is even remotely interesting.

Personally, I don't see it as likely. A 'Ripperologist' would want to show off his knowledge of the crimes, and the hoaxer has little or none. Just a vague regurgitation of the all the clichés. He/she even has Abberline investigating the Eddowes murder.

Not a sophisticate by any means, unless, perhaps, it was a joke gone awry.

Then there's the issue of choosing Mike Barrett as one's confederate.

[Mike J. G.]

So you too are guilty of what Mike J.G accuses others of? Cherry picking things from Mike’s affidavits that suit your needs and dismissing the bits that don’t fit?

I think it would be constructive from all sides that we universally dismiss anything Mike said or wrote in connection to how he obtained the scrapbook as none of it is reliable.

Your side of the debate have an advert that proves in March 1992 Mike Barrett placed an ad for a Victorian Diary with 20 blank pages. Therefore you believe that is intent. Obviously I disagree.

The provenance of how the actual scrapbook did come to be still has to be firmly established by either side. Just to be suspicious or declare “surely it’s obvious” is not enough. It’s not evidence.

I do not have the smoking gun proof that it came from Eddie Lyons to Mike from under the floorboards at Battlecrease either (yet). The timesheets for that day make it equally as compelling as the diary ad, if not more in my view.

If we're dismissing things on the basis of unreliability then we can go ahead and dismiss the many origin stories of the diary itself, as none of them are reliable and all are contradictory. Unfortunately, if you're pushing for the diary to be a genuine artifact found by Eddie Lyons at Battlecreese then you're going to have to have a solid excuse as to why this particular provenance is so shockingly unreliable, otherwise it can be dismissed and the proper conclusion of obvious hoax should remain.

[Mike J. G.]

One minor and perhaps final point.

One of the chief stumbling blocks for disbelieving that the Maybrick Diary is a modern hoax is that Mike Barrett was supposedly too dim-witted and too talentless to have conceived and written this complex text.

Yet, Barrett was married at the time, to a woman who would later write a book about the Maybrick case, so for this point to remain relevant, we are also told in no uncertain terms that his then wife, Anne Graham, was too sensible, too practical, and apparently too ethical to have cooperated with Mike, thus she could not have supplied the talent and intelligence that he (allegedly) so obviously lacked.

In short, that a woman wouldn’t stoop to this sort of thing.

True, most famous literary forgers have been male, and we associate forgeries with a number of infamous men: Thomas Chatterton; William Henry Ireland (who forged Shakespeare manuscripts in the 1790s); David Hoffman, the modern forger of “Mormon Murders” fame; the Hitler Diaries forger, Konrad Kujau, a discredited journalist. There have been others.

But, just as a friendly if unwanted reminder, I’d like to point out that a small number of women have been involved in literary hoaxes over the years, though I admit it is rare. Here is a case in point.

Before, during, and after World War II, a Polish woman named Paulina Czernicka made considerable noise in the music world by claiming she had discovered a trove of love letters written by Frederick Chopin. These were sensational, particularly since there were considerable gaps in our knowledge of Chopin’s private life. Eventually, Czernicka signed a book deal based on her marvelous discovery. Her provenance was that she was distantly related by birth to the woman that Chopin had gushed out his most intimate thoughts: Delfina Potoka. These letters, apparently, had been “in the family for years.”

Soon cracks began to appear in Czernicka’s story. She couldn’t produce the original letters, claiming she only had transcripts from a private archive. The location of this archive kept shifting. Her story was deemed suspicious, and the whole thing was finally dismissed as a hoax. Shortly afterwards, the disgraced Czernicka committed suicide.

Even so, and despite every music critic in Poland and France dismissing the letters as fake, and the Encyclopedia of Poland flatly announcing they were obvious frauds, Czernicka still has her supporters. Some even argue that she was murdered by the Polish government to protect Chopin’s good name! (Shades of Feldman’s conspiracy theories? The ‘Chopin’ letters were somewhat tawdry and implied that the composer was an anti-Semite, so there was supposedly a motive for protecting one of Poland’s national heroes).

All of which goes to show that once a hoax has been let loose on the world, bands of dedicated believers may stick to their guns for decades, despite whatever evidence is thrown at them. Thus, the Maybrick Diary may not have sung its swan song, dead though it may be to me, to most of you, and to the world at large.

For those who may be interested, there is a film about the Czernicka affair. If nothing else, the music is good. No accusation intended by the above commentary: just a thought. Ciao.

Don't forget the Mussolini diaries, allegedly penned by Amalia and Rosa Panvini.