One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

What I find amusing is that every step of the way we were told by the diary 'team' that Bongo Barrett's startling ability to appear literate could be explained by Anne Graham's willingness to help him.

Paul Felman noticed Barrett's research notes were "too literate" for Mike. The explanation? Anne Graham 'tied them up.'

The typescript? 'Mike was hopeless at typing' so Anne Graham stepped in.

Mike's published interviews, etc? Anne Graham, we are told, acted as the helpful ghost cowriter.

It was even Anne's father who apparently fronted the money for the Amstrad.

Yet, when it comes to creating the Maybrick Diary, the idea of Anne helping Barrett is suddenly unthinkable.

Yes it is, because it's a whole different ball game, requiring a totally different set of circumstances, essentially that boring old threesome: means, motive and opportunity. You don't even have a ball, never mind a net or a suitable playing field, yet you think it's all over when the game hasn't even kicked off.

Everything we know Anne helped Mike with, concerning his writing ambitions, is consistent with him seeing the diary and seizing an opportunity to make something of himself at last.

There is nothing on the record before Monday 9th March 1992 to show that the diary was already known about by anyone in Liverpool, or was in the planning stages in Goldie Street. You have to believe that Mike was capable of keeping his trap shut for the entire time that Anne was helping him to research and write this 'story', and then unable to stop talking about the damned thing from that day onwards.

It was Anne herself who said that she wanted Mike to write a story about Maybrick as Jack the Ripper. Or are you forgetting that?

It is not my 'theory'--it was what Anne herself said in her 'confession' to Paul Feldman.

Your theory is based on what Anne said, but it relies entirely on your interpretation of what she meant. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's bleedin' obvious that the same would apply to Mike wanting to publish the diary itself, with its account of Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, and Anne advising him against it if he can't say where it came from and doesn't know who its rightful owner might be. "Just write a story about it Michael, to be on the safe side. Even better, it will look like your own work - even if I have to help you write it as usual."

Are you forgetting the fight they had, over Mike's plan to take the physical diary to London? Mike knew he was incapable of writing such a story himself, but much more than that he wanted to be the man who would solve the greatest mystery in criminal history, so he was never going to heed Anne's advice, was he? He had a much bigger fish to fry - and the best seller he knew he could never hope to write without the help of the "old book" itself.

As far as I am concerned, the only person's opinion worth hearing about the matter is Anne Graham's.

And yet you continue to foist your own opinions on us here, on Ike's thread.

Was she indirectly telling us what actually happened, or am I misreading her?

Hmmm, I wonder. I mean, your track record for misreading people you don't know and have never met is nothing short of legendary, so on that basis alone you can take it that I don't accept Anne was indirectly telling us that she helped Mike write the Maybrick diary.

What she tells you, in your dreams, is your affair.

[caz]

Why couldn't Anne have chosen Maybrick-as-Ripper 'well by accident'?

You seem to be implying some flaw in my thinking-- but now you seem to be shy about stating what that flaw is.

I'm merely trying to understand your point, or even determine if you have one.

The hoaxer gives no hint that Maybrick had any prior familiarity with the "Ripper's hunting ground" --quite the contrary--- so why couldn't Anne or anyone else have chosen Maybrick by "accident"?

You made a big deal out of the diary author assuming that James Maybrick, in 1888, would have had no prior familiarity with the streets where the murders would be committed. That was either right or wrong. If you don't believe he knew those streets either, from his earlier East End associations, then you and your hoaxer are in agreement. The difference is that you think you knew better, while your hoaxer was supposedly writing from total ignorance, only getting this detail right by accident.

If this is not your position then I'm missing something and will happily be corrected.

But briefly, if Maybrick did once frequent some of the mean streets of Whitechapel, back in the 1860s or 1870s, surely you'd admit that was a happy accident for your hoaxer if they had absolutely no idea where in the world he may have been living or working when Bernard Ryan wasn't writing about it. If he'd never been to Whitechapel, London, your hoaxer was equally fortunate when guessing that 'Sir Jim' would need to put that right before he could become 'Sir Jack'.

If, as you are now saying, you never meant to imply any such knowledge was required to write the diary, then we can now happily agree that the hoaxer's choice of Maybrick as a suspect WAS entirely independent of any previous association Maybrick may have had with the East End. And anyone who did know of Maybrick's apparent association with the East End in the 1860s would necessarily have known about Lime Street and Sarah Robertson, etc.--which the hoaxer does not demonstrate.

In other words, that the choice of Maybrick was just a coincidence, and the two of us really having nothing to argue about.

Do I have it correct, now? That we do, in fact, agree?

Whoever wrote the diary--Graham or otherwise--shows no knowledge of these earlier events. Maybrick the diarist merely writes that he frequently visits the capitol and has a brother living there. All that info was easily available in books about the Maybrick case.

That, coupled with Maybrick's death in 1889 and his drug habit, was reason enough for a Liverpool hoaxer to have picked Maybrick as suspect around the time of the 1988 centennial.

Why did someone choose Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, H.H. Holmes, Vincent Van Gough, or any other of the bad suspects named in the 20th Century?

If we found out that Lewis Carroll had visited Mitre Square in 1870, would Richard Wallace's theory suddenly seem more complex and worthy of respect?

I'll try and keep this simple.

Maybrick and Druitt. Nothing would have come down to us about either of them if it had not been for the manner in which they died. Not a sausage.

Druitt's suicide note.

Do you find it inconceivable that Druitt didn't allude in that note to details you have subsequently learned about his life, his work and the people around him, leading up to his untimely death? Would you argue that the more you learn about him, the less he appeared to know about himself, or he'd have put it in that note? Of course you wouldn't. People would smile sympathetically, advise you to stay away from sharp objects and slowly back out of the room.

By extension, imagine Druitt had instead left a more substantial written record of his thought processes during that final year. What personal information would you expect Druitt to have included? Everything he knew about himself and his life - including what you have learned about him over the years? Or would it inevitably have represented just a tiny fraction?

Now ask yourself if someone attempting to create a similar written record of Maybrick's thought processes during his year in Battlecrease House would, or - more to the point - should have alluded to this, that and the other, concerning his earlier life, work and associates, if they had researched and found that information, on the basis of what you believe the real Maybrick would never have failed to mention if this had been his own private diary for 1888/9?

Why do you assume that what's in the diary is the sum total of its author's knowledge? When something we have since learned isn't mentioned, you automatically conclude that your hoaxer would have done so if only they'd put in more research. Where is the logic? You could be the world's number one living expert on Maybrick, but if you fake a diary and cram it full of everything you have learned about him from your research, because it's what he would have known himself, it's going to end up reading like a bloody autobiography! How authentic is that going to look?

[caz]

As you know, the document that connects Maybrick to Sarah Robertson and thus to the East End is Thomas David Conconi's 1868 will, where he names his stepdaughter as Sarah Maybrick, the wife of James. Sarah worked and evidently lived in Fenchurch Street, not very far from Maybrick's office in Lime Street.

Assuming the Sarah Robertson connection is kosher, and I think it is based on what I've seen (I haven't actually seen Conconi's will and am trusting that its contents have been accurately reported), Maybrick would have traveled up the Whitechapel Road to visit the family--probably on top of an omnibus or in a cab. He may have walked the street occasionally for all we know. Sarah is already calling herself 'Maybrick' in 1866, and is named as such in the 1868 will, so one assumes they were still on good terms.

In 1866 the Conconi family lived at No. 43 Bancroft, which was off the Mile-End Road. In traveling from The City, Maybrick would have taken the Whitechapel Road to get there. By 1871, the family had moved to 55 Bromley Street, Stepney. By 1876 they were in Sydenham.

The thing is, the more we learn about the real James Maybrick, the more obvious it is that the diarist doesn't demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever about him other than the standard bits that were reported at Florrie's trial and regurgitated in later books on the case.

Why this doesn't bother you, and why Caz thinks it isn't consistent with a modern fake, is beyond my poor powers of comprehension. The diary friendly have long argued or implied that the narrator has more knowledge that is actually demonstrated in the text.

I only question the theory that the diary was conceived and written by Anne and/or Mike Barrett, although I also reject the argument that Bernard Ryan's book provided the author with Dr Fuller's words to the real James Maybrick in 1889.

[rjpalmer]

Why do you assume that what's in the diary is the sum total of its author's knowledge? When something we have since learned isn't mentioned, you automatically conclude that your hoaxer would have done so if only they'd put in more research. Where is the logic? You could be the world's number one living expert on Maybrick, but if you fake a diary and cram it full of everything you have learned about him from your research, because it's what he would have known himself, it's going to end up reading like a bloody autobiography! How authentic is that going to look?

But that's not really the problem, is it?

It's not the fact that the hoaxer doesn't mechanically rattle off every known fact about Maybrick's life from the spring of 1888 to the spring of 1889.

That's just a ridiculous comment.

The real glaring issue is that all the facts that the hoaxer does rattle off are all the exact same facts that can be found in one, single solitary modern source.

And leaves you with a problem, but you hardly care to acknowledge it: you can't point to a single detail in the diary's text that indicates obscure, expert knowledge.

You're left with idle speculation and a desire to see more in the text than there actually is.

So yes, the diary WOULD have looked more far more authentic if in just one single, solitary instance the hoaxer would have mentioned something---ANYTHING--that couldn't be easily found in Bernard Ryan's 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick"--the same book that Bongo Barrett named as his primary source at the Cloak and Dagger meeting.

Funny how Bongo's casual admission held up to scrutiny. Again.

And that's the real problem you face. The overlap is too perfect to be coincidental. The hoaxer has the same knowledge as Ryan--and the same blind spots. What Ryan doesn't mention, the diarist doesn't mention-- Maybrick's walking tour of Wales, his sitting for his portrait in October 1888, etc. etc., all of which took place during the span of Maybrick's life covered by the diary, so would have been entirely appropriate to mention.

What you seem to want us to believe is that this astonishing overlap is just coincidental. That if two experts independently sat down and created a 63-page confession of the Whitechapel Murders by James Maybrick, they would accidentally settle on exactly the same 100 or so facts. That Keith Skinner's typescript of Maybrick-as-Ripper would have the exact confirmable 'facts' as David Barrat's typescript of Maybrick-as-Ripper.

How likely is that?

No one is going to believe it could happen. If they turned out to use the same 100 facts, then any rational person would conclude they had limited themselves to the exact same source material.

The implications are obvious--and I'm not the only one noticing it.

As for the rest of it, I have no desire to respond further. Your posts sound very angry.

Have a great summer. Maybe I'll see you in mid-September.

[rjpalmer]

When Shakespeare scholars study his history plays do they conclude, "Damn, Will must have had a vast reservoir of knowledge about Richard II, but strangely confined himself entirely to Holinshed," or do they conclude, "Damn, it sure looks like Will based his play on Holinshed!"

[Harry D]

Maybe if you occasionally saw fit to challenge those who believe the Diary is genuine, instead of enabling them, you wouldn't make such mistakes.

Quite so, RJ. Caz is antagonistic towards those who push a modern hoax, while conspicuously less so towards the pro-diarists, despite the fact she claims to disagree with both. I wish she would come out of the closet already. 'Tis the season!

[caz]

Hi Harry,

In case you hadn't gathered by now - although I've said this on many an occasion - I only question those who push for a modern Barrett hoax.

This clearly doesn't apply to 'pro-diarists', or anyone else not pushing for a Barrett hoax.

I strongly dispute RJ Palmer's claim that the diary author must have used Bernard Ryan's book as their source for the Maybrick information, or that they could have written every word about the Maybricks contained in the diary using only Ryan's book.

Only when it suits RJ's beliefs, will he accept certain claims made by Mike Barrett. RJ will reject all other claims Mike made whenever they conflict with those same beliefs - even when this compulsive liar was swearing an affidavit, describing how the diary was conceived and created, and who played the various roles.

Did Mike admit in that affidavit that Anne had come up with the idea for him to write a story about Maybrick being Jack the Ripper?

Did Mike admit that he wasn't capable, so Anne wrote it instead, and they had a blazing argument when he was determined to turn her story into a fake diary, and try to pass it off as genuine?

That is what RJ believes happened, but this is what Mike actually claimed in his affidavit:

'I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possbility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was to (sic) easey (sic).

I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".'

For starters, if the diary 'story' had been pure invention by either Barrett, as Mike had just sworn to, he would hardly have needed to add that he was 'certain' Maybrick was not the ripper! It's such a childish giveaway, revealing the reality that the Barretts had nothing to do with it. It would be like Conan Doyle claiming to be sure Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person.

Another issue that RJ has yet to reconcile with his theory is why Mike twice said he had never heard of Bernard Ryan's book until Shirley Harrison mentioned it to him. He had the ideal opportunity to say so in his affidavit, if the truth was that he or Anne had used it as their sole source of the Maybrick information in the diary, as RJ insists. Instead, Mike merely claimed that they had 'looked closely at the background of James Maybrick...'.

How any of this fits with RJ's theory that the diary was created from a 'novella' that Anne wrote, based on Ryan's book, is not clear, but if he is not inclined to expand on his reasoning it may be that he too is unsure of how to make it work.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Understanding the "diary debate" in one sentence:

[erobitha]

Understanding the "diary debate" in one sentence:

Maybe one day you will actually put a full timeline on here to show us imbeciles (who dare believe no Barrett or Graham wrote it) exactly how Anne Barrett actually pulled it off - from start to finish.

Some fools like me need it spelt out for us RJ, so please enlighten me.

Or is it just more convenient taking pot shots with the view of muddying the waters just enough so that a real discussion can never take place on who actually wrote it?

[John Wheat]

Maybe one day you will actually put a full timeline on here to show us imbeciles (who dare believe no Barrett or Graham wrote it) exactly how Anne Barrett actually pulled it off - from start to finish.

Some fools like me need it spelt out for us RJ, so please enlighten me.

Or is it just more convenient taking pot shots with the view of muddying the waters just enough so that a real discussion can never take place on who actually wrote it?

That's not how it works. It's up to those that believe the Diary is the genuine article to prove that.

[erobitha]

That's not how it works. It's up to those that believe the Diary is the genuine article to prove that.

Firstly on that, logic I do not have to prove anything as I am agnostic to it being genuine. What I do truly believe is we have an actual document that could be important in one shape or another, but we can only know that if all theories around it are explored and eliminated accordingly. The Barrett hoax theory is not viable, which means it must be something else. If it was viable then why have we not seen a proper timeline against this theory of how events unfolded?

I have not seen one cohesive timeline from anyone including RJ that genuinely supports the Barrett hoax theory, just lots of picking at details to create as much uncertainty as possible. In understanding who actually wrote this, there needs to be a better understanding of how it came to be.

I guess it's far easier to place the burden of truth, whatever that may be, on others' shoulders. It's much easier. To get to the truth, well that actually requires commitment. Those accused of being diary defenders are ultimately seekers of truth. This document has not been properly dismissed as a hoax, only by various opinions. So it should be subjected to all theories robustly and those theories should come with timelines and source references.

There are at least three provenance stories for example, they can't all be right. Rather than saying because of that fact it is clearly a hoax. No, that is an opinion. One of those provenance stories might be true. All could be wrong.

It really is a cop out to say those who believe must prove it. No-one actually knows how important or not this document is because we still do not collectively understand HOW it came to be, WHEN was it written, WHO wrote it and WHY.

Chris Jones may have the killer blows in September, we shall see. My guess is he has at best made some kind of case for HOW references from different source materials may have been used, but I strongly suspect he hasn't answered WHEN, WHO or WHY? I wait to be proven wrong.

Until then, I am in the camp of trying to discover the truth.

[Abby Normal]

That's not how it works. It's up to those that believe the Diary is the genuine article to prove that.

hey john
If almighty God came down from heaven and told the diary defenders that the barretts hoaxed the diary they still wouldnt beleive it. tjere should be a sign hung over this thread like the one over the gates of Hell "abandon all hope, ye who enter here"

tje only mystery left is why people keep arguing with them ad nauseum. youd have better luck with a rock.

[caz]

Understanding the "diary debate" in one sentence:

It was certainly easier for Mike to fool his band of believers than for anyone to convince them that they were fooled by this clown.

I mean, how thoroughly idiotic would they feel, if they ever had to admit that in a public setting? I bet they couldn't admit it even to themselves.

The burden of proof is on those who insist that the Barretts knowingly committed fraud back in 1992 with a diary they faked between them.

An equal burden, but not a greater one, is on anyone who insists that Maybrick's handwriting is in the diary and he committed murder back in 1888.

Going back to January 1995, and Mike's best shot at convincing the fools that the diary is a Barrett/Devereux fraud, he makes a twat of himself by claiming to be 'certain' that Maybrick was not the ripper.

A similar childish giveaway moment comes when Mike is talking to Alan Gray, who is played for quite some time before finally seeing the light. Mike explains to Gray that Bernard Ryan got something or other right in his book, because Maybrick confirms it in his diary! You couldn't make it up. It's not as if Mike is pulling a subtle bluff, because he is meant to be giving Gray evidence that the diary is a Barrett fake.

There are enough clues like this to make anyone with an enquiring mind smell a rat whenever Mike opens his trap.

In 1999 at the infamous Cloak & Dagger meeting, Mike claims the opposite of what he did in his affidavit. He now says he believes Maybrick was the ripper, and that was why they wrote the diary!

If RJ thinks any of this makes me 'angry', he couldn't be more wrong. Anyone who still allows themselves to be taken in by Mike's various claims to inside knowledge of the diary's creation is probably more deserving of sympathy than condemnation. It's a burden they evidently find increasingly hard to shake off.

[caz]

hey john
If almighty God came down from heaven and told the diary defenders that the barretts hoaxed the diary they still wouldnt beleive it. tjere should be a sign hung over this thread like the one over the gates of Hell "abandon all hope, ye who enter here"

tje only mystery left is why people keep arguing with them ad nauseum. youd have better luck with a rock.

If almighty God came down from heaven and told me anything, I'd know I was ready for the funny farm, Abby.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

That's not how it works. It's up to those that believe the Diary is the genuine article to prove that.

That's not how it works either (at least that's not fully the case). It's up to those who state any proposition on any subject to prove that proposition.

Ike