One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Harry D]

so frankly I now have no problem at all with anyone coming up with a 'bumbling buffoon' in Victorian times

I don't think anyone ever doubted you would

[rjpalmer]

From another thread, but more appropriately posted here:

so easy to lazily dismiss without any effort whatsoever...

Ike, Old Man, sorry to have to challenge you, but this 'laziness' argument of yours is beyond stale...indeed, it is so stale that it's beyond the pale.

Your friend 'Cazikins' (as well as Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Bruce Robinson, etc.) have also dismissed the diary as a fake...and at least one of them has even called it an obvious fake.

Have they, too, done so out of laziness?

The thing is, Old Boy, if you can't convince a group of people who believe that the diary is an old document that came out of Battlecrease on the day Maybrick's floorboards were supposedly lifted, how do you expect to convince those who don't?

It pains me to point this out, but it appears that either your powers of persuasion aren't very good or--more likely---the competency of the hoaxers really didn't leave you much material to work with!

In brief, if your sermon can't even convince the choir, how on earth can you convince the cynics in the back pew who have heard it once too often, and have tip-toed out the back door?

Meanwhile, as for this accusation of 'laziness,' this is precisely the allegation I would aim in your direction--not that you stand alone in this regard. Far from it--you have several confederates in this plot of laziness.

The way I see it, bellowing on & on & on about Mike Barrett, and how Mike Barrett didn't know anything, and Mike Barrett couldn't have written it, and Mike Barrett was a liar, and posting imaginary dialogues by Mike Barrett, and Fleetwood Mac videos supposedly referring to Mike Barrett, etc. etc. is the absolute depth of lazy thinking.

You're simply taking the lazy way out and attacking the easy target. You are lazily harvesting the rotted, low hanging fruit.

You see, I don't think Mike wrote the diary either. Maybe a bit of the doggerel poetry, but little more.

I am of the decided opinion that Anne Graham has already told us exactly who wrote the diary and when and why and how it came to be published...it is just that no one was listening, because she wrapped her 'confession' in the middle of a ****-and-bull story of how the diary came down through her family and had been around for years.

Remove those elements, and she all but yells it out in plain English how it all 'went down' and she also explains why she went along with it and also why Mike never gave an entirely truthful confession about the diary's true origins even though he obviously and undeniably demonstrated inside knowledge of them.

It's right there in print if only you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Seek and you shall find.

[Iconoclast]

From another thread, but more appropriately posted here:
You see, I don't think Mike wrote the diary either. Maybe a bit of the doggerel poetry, but little more.
I am of the decided opinion that Anne Graham has already told us exactly who wrote the diary and when and why and how it came to be published...it is just that no one was listening, because she wrapped her 'confession' in the middle of a ****-and-bull story of how the diary came down through her family and had been around for years.
Remove those elements, and she all but yells it out in plain English how it all 'went down' and she also explains why she went along with it and also why Mike never gave an entirely truthful confession about the diary's true origins even though he obviously and undeniably demonstrated inside knowledge of them.
It's right there in print if only you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Seek and you shall find.

Or you could just tell us, for ****'s sake!

What's the big deal - given that you're going to be wrong whoever you think it was?

[rjpalmer]

Or you could just tell us, for ****'s sake!

What's the big deal - given that you're going to be wrong whoever you think it was?

I'm not wrong, Ike. The evidence--all the obvious evidence that you wrongly reject--points right to it, and Anne Graham all but spells it out.

But, as you already admit, you won't believe the right answer anyway, so why bother?

It is my belief that Anne Graham has already indirectly confessed to having written the diary--she wanted to come clean--but everyone was so busy trying to solve the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery and, in some cases, make a quick buck, that no one paid attention to what she was trying to tell them.

If I have misunderstood what Anne was trying to say--and I don't think I have--she can certainly feel free to correct me.

But I don't think she will.

Let me add that I don't think she intended any wrong-doing--I think she was a victim of her husband's scam--'the final victim,' if you will.

[caz]

You're simply taking the lazy way out and attacking the easy target. You are lazily harvesting the rotted, low hanging fruit.

This was addressed to Ike, but the lack of self awareness here is little short of astonishing. Only recently, RJ, you were justifying your accusations by saying that Mike had given you 'the green light' by accusing himself [and then trying to take Anne, and the late Tony and Billy, down with him, when he knew he would need accomplices to make it remotely credible]. If that wasn't lazily attacking the easy target I don't know what would be.

You see, I don't think Mike wrote the diary either.

You don't say!

Maybe a bit of the doggerel poetry, but little more.

That's quite funny actually. You don't really believe that, do you?

I am of the decided opinion that Anne Graham has already told us exactly who wrote the diary and when and why and how it came to be published...it is just that no one was listening, because she wrapped her 'confession' in the middle of a ****-and-bull story of how the diary came down through her family and had been around for years.

So she too gave you 'the green light' to accuse her, but in a subliminal fashion? Are you still so blissfully unaware of your uncanny ability to read between the lines and be totally wrong about what you see there?

And why should your 'decided opinion' make the slightest difference to anything? On another thread you clearly stated that the diary was a Barrett fraud. No ifs, buts or maybes. Was that to impress the likes of FISHY that this was more than just your 'decided opinion', and you had the facts to prove it? Did you know it wouldn't wash in this place?

Remove those elements, and she all but yells it out in plain English how it all 'went down' and she also explains why she went along with it and also why Mike never gave an entirely truthful confession about the diary's true origins even though he obviously and undeniably demonstrated inside knowledge of them.

It's right there in print if only you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Seek and you shall find.

I thought you were not interested in the psychological aspects of Mike or Anne as people, and formed your conclusions without needing to know such things. And yet you now claim to be an expert. If you think you are so good at reading this much between Anne's lines, perhaps you ought to be doing something vaguely useful by predicting what Putin is thinking and where this will all end, by what he says in public.

[rjpalmer]

So she too gave you 'the green light' to accuse her, but in a subliminal fashion? Are you still so blissfully unaware of your uncanny ability to read between the lines and be totally wrong about what you see there?

Oh my, not this tired ploy again.

Where's Fast Eddy Lyons when we need him, so you can accuse him of theft and fencing goods, based on old, exploded folklore?

That's your business--feel free--but the obvious hypocrisy gets a little boring.

In reality, I suspect that I have considerably more respect for Anne Graham than you do, Caz.

The 'Loot Magazine' scam reveals Barrett's m.o.: he scammed other people into doing his work for him. Into doing what he was incapable of doing.

I think 'Loot' was merely the Diary 2.0. Same scam, really. A book that didn't exist and other people helping him out with the best intentions, then Barrett taking the finished product to market.

After all, grifters usually just repeat the same grift over & over again.

Only the first-time round, the person Barrett scammed and bullied was his own wife.

No wonder he never came completely clean.

As I say, if I have misinterpreted Anne Graham's confession--and I don't think I have--she can correct me.

I'm not using 'psychology' so much as I am just listening very carefully to what she actually said.

[Iconoclast]

The 'Loot Magazine' scam reveals Barrett's m.o.: he scammed other people into doing his work for him. Into doing what he was incapable of doing.
I think 'Loot' was merely the Diary 2.0. Same scam, really. A book that didn't exist and other people helping him out with the best intentions, then Barrett taking the finished product to market.
After all, grifters usually just repeat the same grift over & over again.
Only the first-time round, the person Barrett scammed and bullied was his own wife.
No wonder he never came completely clean.
As I say, if I have misinterpreted Anne Graham's confession--and I don't think I have--she can correct me.
I'm not using 'psychology' so much as I am just listening very carefully to what she actually said.

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than someone arguing that the Barretts of Goldie Street wrote the Maybrick scrapbook.

Nothing.

It actually helps me to sleep, and indeed induces it ...

[rjpalmer]

I was interested to see this comment on another thread:

There was no attempt to 'forge' Maybrick's handwriting, so no proof it wasn't someone's literary exercise, never intended for publication.

Gee, that rings a bell. Where have I heard that before?

Oh, I know. Anne Graham said the exact same thing in her long statement to Paul Feldman.



Anne is telling you what happened, Caz--and it even aligns with your own instincts--but will you listen?

Graham is saying that the diary began as a story...a novella.

But it was never meant for publication as a physical hoax--just as a story.

Indeed, when she found out what Mike was planning to do with her typescript, she fought him physically on the kitchen floor.

It's all right there in her statement. And Little Caroline had already described the same incident to Paul Begg.

[rjpalmer]

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than someone arguing that the Barretts of Goldie Street wrote the Maybrick scrapbook.

Nothing.

It actually helps me to sleep, and indeed induces it ...

That can't be helped, Ike.

As the philosopher J. Hartley observed on the Sophie Toscan du Plantier thread, people like the 'story.' The actual truth is ugly and boring.

The disconnect imbedded in Hartley's statement is a little startling, but I don't think we can dismiss his general principle.

Sweet dreams.

[FISHY1118]

How could anyone support a Diary/[Watch] that is said to be written by Jack the Ripper, that has so much controversy surrounding its origins.? As well as the legitimacy of its contents ? Surely there are easier suspects to make a more positive case for, I think Maybrick as jtr is done and dusted .

[Iconoclast]

How could anyone support a Diary/[Watch] that is said to be written by Jack the Ripper, that has so much controversy surrounding its origins.? As well as the legitimacy of its contents ? Surely there are easier suspects to make a more positive case for, I think Maybrick as jtr is done and dusted .

Well that entirely depends upon how you evaluate those contents, Fishy.

I'm uncomfortable with your idea that the challenges of the scrapbook (the watch, by the way, doesn't have the same challenges except for the lack of a clear provenance back story) are good reason to seek another candidate for Jack. You sound rather like the chap in the old Zen parable who is searching around for his house keys underneath a street lamp. When asked if this is where he dropped his keys, he says "No, but the light's a lot better here".

There have been lots of issues raised around the scrapbook and - as these have been primarily raised by those who have no interest whatsoever in resolving them - they have been presented as fait accompli rather than as possibilities. My favourite one is the claim that the scrapbook has been proven to be a hoax when - of course - it hasn't. Not once! This doesn't stop the flood of claims. They are far too numerous to properly describe and deal with here. This is precisely why I created my brilliant Society's Pillar (currently undergoing its magnificent 2025 overhaul, of course). Every question (I think) thrown at the scrapbook and the watch has (or will be) addressed. Not necessarily contradicted, but certainly reasonable alternative positions explored.

And I am left with one or two pieces of evidence directly pointing at James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. They are, of course, the 'FM' on Kelly's wall (please, everyone, don't start on with your facile "They're blood splatters" again) and the rather excellent facsimile of James Maybrick's known signature (from his marriage licence) in the back of the gold watch. These are like James' fingerprints. The author of the scrapbook knew what was written in blood on Kelly's wall, and the author of the scratches in James Maybrick's watch knew exactly how James Maybrick signed his name.

If this makes you feel in any way uncomfortable and you want to counter these arguments by asserting that the hoaxer was the first to ever notice those initials in the Kelly photograph, and if you want to claim that the hoaxer (or some other hoaxer if that is more believable somehow for you) researched Maybrick's marriage licence then I would have to accept that these too are plausible alternatives to my own positions; however, if we allow you this largesse, neither you nor any of your ilk can ever again make the claim that the scrapbook is a shoddy hoax.

And yet the difficulties you describe are exactly predicated on the 'Shoddy Hoax Theory' and you and your ilk really shouldn't expect to have it both ways. And this causes endless back and forth and - I have to imagine - a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance which you and your ilk may not even be fully aware of. How can we say it's a shoddy piece of work but rely on the argument that a skilled hoaxer was at work?

It's a dilemma which is solved only by the architect of the two artefacts: the chap living at Battlecrease House throughout most of 1888.

Ike

[caz]

Oh my, not this tired ploy again.

Where's Fast Eddy Lyons when we need him, so you can accuse him of theft and fencing goods, based on old, exploded folklore?

That's your business--feel free--but the obvious hypocrisy gets a little boring.

In reality, I suspect that I have considerably more respect for Anne Graham than you do, Caz.

The 'Loot Magazine' scam reveals Barrett's m.o.: he scammed other people into doing his work for him. Into doing what he was incapable of doing.

I think 'Loot' was merely the Diary 2.0. Same scam, really. A book that didn't exist and other people helping him out with the best intentions, then Barrett taking the finished product to market.

After all, grifters usually just repeat the same grift over & over again.

Only the first-time round, the person Barrett scammed and bullied was his own wife.

No wonder he never came completely clean.

As I say, if I have misinterpreted Anne Graham's confession--and I don't think I have--she can correct me.

I'm not using 'psychology' so much as I am just listening very carefully to what she actually said.

Risible nonsense on stilts. I wouldn't try and sell your interpretation of events as a tv drama if I were you. Could it get any more convoluted and unworkable?

I haven't needed to 'accuse' Eddie of anything. He and others who knew him have been doing that themselves at various times since July 1992, over six years before I'd ever heard of the old book, which he said he'd found under the floorboards of Battlecrease House and thought might be "important".

Ever heard of the saying about not shooting the messenger?

Old, exploded folklore is it? I wouldn't bank on it, sunshine.

Anne walked out on Mike in January 1994, a strong and independent woman. What was she hanging around for in 1992, letting a man like Mike scam and bully her into committing fraud, with a fake diary that was in her own handwriting? What evidence do you have that she was such a weak and feeble woman back then, and so dim that she couldn't think of any way to stop Mike before he dropped them both in the dog poo? A simple word to Doreen when they first spoke, and a request for her discretion, and it would all have been over before it began.

DM: "I'm so sorry, Mike, but having thought it over..." Finis.

Keep it simple. Mike sees the old book signed Jack the Ripper. He sees the opportunity to make something of himself at long last if it turns out not to be a joke but possibly real. He only has to find a way to claim it belongs to him. He has been told that no bugger alive knows about it, so he takes a punt. He's a chancer on the make. It's what anyone who knew him would have expected him to do.

The handwriting, the paper, the ink, the content - all the concerns that would need to be weighed up in 1992 by anyone planning to pass off their own work as Victorian, let alone by the ripper, and which you have to incorporate into your theory about the Barretts - melt away if their one and only concern at that point in time is whether there is a rightful owner out there who will miss it and cry foul.

The Battlecrease story is actually simplicity itself by comparison, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for it, but off you go down your rabbit hole, assuming you are on the right track and won't be proved wrong by the evidence safely gathered in or still out there. Have fun with it while it lasts.

[FISHY1118]

Well that entirely depends upon how you evaluate those contents, Fishy.

I'm uncomfortable with your idea that the challenges of the scrapbook (the watch, by the way, doesn't have the same challenges except for the lack of a clear provenance back story) are good reason to seek another candidate for Jack. You sound rather like the chap in the old Zen parable who is searching around for his house keys underneath a street lamp. When asked if this is where he dropped his keys, he says "No, but the light's a lot better here".

There have been lots of issues raised around the scrapbook and - as these have been primarily raised by those who have no interest whatsoever in resolving them - they have been presented as fait accompli rather than as possibilities. My favourite one is the claim that the scrapbook has been proven to be a hoax when - of course - it hasn't. Not once! This doesn't stop the flood of claims. They are far too numerous to properly describe and deal with here. This is precisely why I created my brilliant Society's Pillar (currently undergoing its magnificent 2025 overhaul, of course). Every question (I think) thrown at the scrapbook and the watch has (or will be) addressed. Not necessarily contradicted, but certainly reasonable alternative positions explored.

And I am left with one or two pieces of evidence directly pointing at James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper. They are, of course, the 'FM' on Kelly's wall (please, everyone, don't start on with your facile "They're blood splatters" again) and the rather excellent facsimile of James Maybrick's known signature (from his marriage licence) in the back of the gold watch. These are like James' fingerprints. The author of the scrapbook knew what was written in blood on Kelly's wall, and the author of the scratches in James Maybrick's watch knew exactly how James Maybrick signed his name.

If this makes you feel in any way uncomfortable and you want to counter these arguments by asserting that the hoaxer was the first to ever notice those initials in the Kelly photograph, and if you want to claim that the hoaxer (or some other hoaxer if that is more believable somehow for you) researched Maybrick's marriage licence then I would have to accept that these too are plausible alternatives to my own positions; however, if we allow you this largesse, neither you nor any of your ilk can ever again make the claim that the scrapbook is a shoddy hoax.

And yet the difficulties you describe are exactly predicated on the 'Shoddy Hoax Theory' and you and your ilk really shouldn't expect to have it both ways. And this causes endless back and forth and - I have to imagine - a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance which you and your ilk may not even be fully aware of. How can we say it's a shoddy piece of work but rely on the argument that a skilled hoaxer was at work?

It's a dilemma which is solved only by the architect of the two artefacts: the chap living at Battlecrease House throughout most of 1888.

Ike

Your forgetting one very important thing .... He was a Cotton Merchant , who by your belief remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdomial cavity in 7 mins, when he could have choosen any other organ with relative ease. Its your Achillies heal im afaide, just as Mary Kelly is Trevors with his organ harvesting theory .

Sorry i dont do long drawn out post, they bore me because they dont say anything.

[caz]

For RJ:

The diary comes home with Mike one day in March 1992, wrapped in the brown paper described by an electrician in 1993, before he could have read about it in any newspaper or book.

Anne looks at it, frowns, and asks Mike where the hell he got it. Mike is cagey because he suspects it's dodgy, but tells her no other bugger alive knows about it. Anne voices her natural concerns and warns him not to do anything stupid with it.

Within a couple of days, letters begin arriving for Mike postmarked London, and Anne worms the truth - or half truth - out of him about what's been going on.

Anne explodes: "You can't be serious, Mike! You're not thinking of getting this thing published, are you? You don't know where it's been. Write a story based on it, but for God's sake don't show it to anyone."

Mike temporarily placates Anne by agreeing to this, but in early April a letter arrives confirming arrangements for him to take the diary to show the people in London, and that's when Anne puts up a fight to try and stop him.

She loses.

He goes to London armed with Jack the Ripper's diary, wrapped in its brown paper, and his dead pal story to explain how he became its legitimate owner.

He returns to Goldie Street, grinning from ear to ear.

"We're going to write a best seller, girl. We can't fail."

Which part of this clashes with Anne's later statement that the diary wasn't meant for publication, but to be the basis for a story?

[Trevor Marriott]

Your forgetting one very important thing .... He was a Cotton Merchant , who by your belief remove one of the most difficult organs in the abdomial cavity in 7 mins, when he could have choosen any other organ with relative ease. Its your Achillies heal im afaide, just as Mary Kelly is Trevors with his organ harvesting theory .

Sorry i dont do long drawn out post, they bore me because they dont say anything.

Would you care to show that organ harvesting was not rife around mortuaries in 1888 along with the body dealers who were directly involved with mortuary staff in this lillicit trade in organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk