One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

But Caz is right. It's all just a tiresome gameshow...without the prizes...between people who don't agree and will never agree. Eventually someone in Liverpool will set the record straight, and we'll see who gets to scrub the egg from their face.

Wasn't Chris Jones meant to be setting the record straight with his book? And wasn't Palmer advised to get in touch with him or Anne Graham, to put his suspicions to her and see if she responded by telling the truth or throwing eggs at him?

[rjpalmer]

Is Palmer getting his black and blue mixed up?

Well, I did get it a bit mixed up--as aways, I'm left wondering why Keith doesn't simply log-on to his still current account instead of relying on a postman who is in love with color-coded messages and small, medium, and large fonts. My mistake, though.

Either way, all my points are still relevant and on point. I doubt Keith thinks Anne is a 'fool.' Whether he still think she was incapable of hoaxing I'll leave for him to answer.

He hasn't given the whole story about Martin Fido, either.

[caz]

Did Keith say that he thought Anne 'incapable' of hoaxing the diary?

I thought that was Martin Fido then, and Ike now.

That black and blue post of Ike's - with only normal font size - was clear enough to me.

Perhaps Palmer should have been getting more sleep after apparently spending most of his holidays watching this thread like a hawk and pouncing on his prey. Was the turkey dry enough to choke a camel? [Thank you Blanche Hunt, from Coronation Street.]

[Iconoclast]

It was an obvious attempt to quickly sweep David Barrat's research under the rug: undeniable evidence that Barrett had worked as a journalist in the 1980s, and this was kept from the public, almost certainly and knowingly by Mike and Anne, so it would not raise suspicion. How can this be anything other than a red flag?

Let's be clear here (because I can't be arsed to check for myself): was Lord Orsam of Barrat the first person to ever uncover that articles had been written by Mike Barrett or was the fact that he had had articles published in his name in two-bit rags already on the record and all Barrat did was locate them? In terms of red flags, there's an obvious world of difference between these two scenarios. In one, it's a secret kept from everyone for nefarious purposes until Lord Orsam brilliantly uncovered it (once again proving himself to be the dark matter to Keith Skinner's matter); and - in the other - it's a known claim which Lord Orsam successfully turned into a fact which was interesting but hardly the point (if the claim had already been made). Which is it (as I say, I can't be arsed to check)?

For the record, I suspect it was the latter: that Mike Barrett had already admitted on more than one occasion that he had attempted a literary career in the 1980s (and had failed miserably) and all Lord O of the Dark Lands of Yore had done was track down his wonderfully average output.

Obviously, we all know exactly what point is attempted to be conveyed here: a red flag, a red flag, we've got a red flag and it's turned me into a newt!

It's not a red flag any more than I am (or ever was) a newt, if anyone is wondering.

[rjpalmer]

Like Caz in 2003, you are welcome to think they are an illusion, but they are not an affliction of the single mind (that kind of worrying illusion), let's be clear. If you can't see that to which I am referring, you need a trip to Specsavers pronto.

And Caz's post bothers me not a jot.

Nothing ever bothers you a jot, Ike. You're the Duracell Bunny.

What her old post does do is to thoroughly undermine and expose the testy argument that you have used again and again, and which sometimes leads to you being shown to the forum door: that the naysayers themselves see the 'FM' and either lie about not seeing it or are so emotionally scarred by its reality that they fail to acknowledge it on some psychological level.

Unless you are also characterizing Caz as one of us liars or psychologically damaged naysayers, your argument holds no brief. She is neither antagonistic to the diary, nor do I think, does she lead Ripper tours around the East End, nor has a rival theory that leaves her seeing the Liverpool Cotton Merchant as an unwanted rival that must be given the bum's rush.

Ergo, there is no need to ever discuss the matter again, Old Boy. It's been put to bed. It's just your imagination running riot and there is no conspiracy.

[Iconoclast]

That black and blue post of Ike's - with only normal font size - was clear enough to me.

I think RJ was alluding to my excessively emphasising in another post that Dan Farson printed Florence Maybrick's initials on Kelly's wall way way way back back back in 1973, Cazmo!

[The Rookie Detective]

It’s not too late to change your mind RD.

Keith Skinner emailed me to offer you some advice:

”Without wishing to discourage or influence RD in any way, I would suggest to him/her that the first thing he/ she has to decide is whether the diary is a modern hoax - and I would suggest he/she read all of R.J.Palmer's contributions and Lord Orsam's diary to help him/her to reach a conclusion. If RD is persuaded by their arguments that the diary was created by Mike and Anne Barrett, then all discussion about FM on the wall and whether JM was JTR becomes irrelevant.”

Thank you for your message and to Keith for his guidance.

I am in the position where I know comparatively little about the Maybrick debate, and so for me it's important that those on this thread who do have an advanced and intricate knowledge, are aware that everything I write comes from a place of sincerity and respect.

I am the kind of person who likes to hypothesize and think outside the box, and so I always aim to come at the case from varying angles.
I am aware of the difference between hypothesis and theory and so I will refrain from making theories about Maybrick, because I am not in the position to make such theories.

I read the diary when I was in my teens and so its been a while since I read the material.
I will endeavour to obtain a copy of the diary and try to familiarise myself again with its contents.

I do have a hypothesis regarding Maybrick, but I will keep that to myself for the time being until I earn my stripes so to speak.

Thanks again for your message and to Keith for taking the time to acknowledge and advise me.

Regards

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

May I ask a couple of questions regarding Maybrick?


Is there any possibility whatsoever that the diary is authentic and written by Maybrick... but Maybrick was a fantasist who genuinely believed he was the Ripper, but in reality he still wasn't the Ripper?

Albert Bachert was a narcissistic fantasist who attached himself to the case, and so could Maybrick have been of the similar ilk and chose to write a diary full of fantasy?

That would then both support and negate Maybrick all at the same time.

I thought I'd start nice and easy in my line of questioning so as not to ruffle any feathers...

famous last words


RD

[Iconoclast]

Nothing ever bothers you a jot, Ike. You're the Duracell Bunny.

That's because I have the super-charged, long-life advantage of knowing that I am right, RJ. It gives you wings, mate.

... that the naysayers themselves see the 'FM' and either lie about not seeing it or are so emotionally scarred by its reality that they fail to acknowledge it on some psychological level.

At the risk of being shown the door again, I can state with absolute certainty that there are a group of people who post both here and on t'other place who cannot even admit that Florence Maybrick's initials appear to be on Mary Kelly's wall. Instead, we get brain fog, and myopia, and then the silly sniding starts ("Oh, I can see Frosty the Snowman - he must have been Jack!") and I ask myself why they do that and - in most cases - I think they know that admitting to what the average Joe in the street with little or no skin in the game can see without any difficulty whatsoever means (even if they don't agree that it is actually 'FM') - namely that Florrie's initials can be read very easily on Kelly's wall. Such myopia as this causes me to think they have something to fear and then I think I too would be scared if I was staring down the barrel of being wrong, in public, with a big dunce's hat awaiting me on the doorstep when I get home from posting on Jack the Ripper sites all day when I'm supposed to be working.

Unless you are also characterizing Caz as one of us liars or psychologically damaged naysayers, your argument holds no brief. She is neither antagonistic to the diary, nor do I think, does she lead Ripper tours around the East End, nor has a rival theory that leaves her seeing the Liverpool Cotton Merchant as an unwanted rival that must be given the bum's rush.

I'm not aware that Caz has ever said that she can't see what is being referred to, has she? Maybe she could clarify for us? Caz, when I talk about the 'FM' which is so obvious on Kelly's wall, are you left in complete bemusement each time, stumbling into doors and falling into manholes and utterly unable to at least identify that which is being discussed?

Ergo, there is no need to ever discuss the matter again, Old Boy. It's been put to bed. It's just your imagination running riot and there is no conspiracy.

And how you and your ilk would love that! Florence Maybrick's initials have not been put to bed because they are clearly above the bed and will ever remain there, fixed like flies in amber [thank you Philip Sugden] as a lasting confession by James Maybrick, albeit one left for his own titillation.

[rjpalmer]

Let's be clear here (because I can't be arsed to check for myself): was Lord Orsam of Barrat the first person to ever uncover that articles had been written by Mike Barrett or was the fact that he had had articles published in his name in two-bit rags already on the record and all Barrat did was locate them? In terms of red flags, there's an obvious world of difference between these two scenarios. In one, it's a secret kept from everyone for nefarious purposes until Lord Orsam brilliantly uncovered it (once again proving himself to be the dark matter to Keith Skinner's matter); and - in the other - it's a known claim which Lord Orsam successfully turned into a fact [thank you, the Dark Lord] which was interesting but hardly the point (if the claim had already been made). Which is it (as I say, I can't be arsed to check)?

I've already answered most of this, Ike.

1. In the first edition of The Diary of Jack the Ripper (1993) there was not a PEEP about Barrett previously having been a writer. Nothing to suggest it whatsoever. In fact, we were told (falsely) that after receiving the diary in 1991, Barrett only then bought a word processor in order to write the diary's story for himself, but he was over his head, and thus he ultimately contacted a literary agent.

2. Yet, even before this, but not included in Harrison's book, Martin Chittenden in the Sunday Times' included an interesting but unexplained snippet that Barrett had written word puzzles for a children's magazine, Look-In. This doesn't sound to me like something that Mike would have spontaneously revealed. I have a theory about why and how Chittenden discovered this, but I'll leave my theories out of it.

3. In subsequent editions of Harrison's book, a slow drip of information begins to morph Barrett from a scrap metal dealer into to a bloke who did a spot of writing, but never on any professional level. In Harrison's "Blake" edition, she now includes the Look-In bit, and admits that Barrett belonged to a local writer's circle, but for me, this only leaves the more discerning members of the public to wonder why this hadn't been said earlier, since any rational person knows that it should have been reported.

4. In 1994/1995 the private detective Alan Gray, portrayed by the diary's supporters as a 'clown,' chased down the receipt for the Barrett's word processor and proved that the public had been mislead. It had been purchased in 1986 and not 1991, and Barrett had used it to launch his new career.

5. Feldman, in his 1998 (?) book, largely portrays Barrett as an illiterate drunk who can't string two words together and we later learn that someone had told Alec Voller that Barrett was a "mental vegetable." This, of course, is the image that you strenuously endorse and promote.

6. In Ripper Diary: the Inside Story (2003) we are treated to the Devereux Sisters being surprised that Barrett has been portrayed as a "ordinary Liverpool bloke,' when they had heard he had been a journalist who had contributed to magazines, sometime before 1991. Which is a FAR CRY from what Harrison and Smith had published in 1993.

7. The same authors also reveal (page 150) that by at least 1994 Shirley Harrison had received three articles from D.C. Thompson publishers, showing Barrett had written for Celebrity magazine, which makes me wonder why more hadn't been made of this and revealed in Shirley's 'Blake' edition. No doubt you think it was "irrelevant," but I doubt the public would feel the same way.

8. As late as 2017, Robert Smith, in his own book on the subject, was still claiming Barrett was only responsible for children's puzzles in Look-In. He was entirely oblivious to the D.C. Thompson articles, and didn't mention them, despite Shirley Harrison having had this information for more than 20 years. This is what got Lord Orsam's goat, I think, and deservedly so.

9. So it was at this point that your good friend, Lord Orsam, in writing a book review of Smith's efforts, mentioned that Barrett's writing career was being mischaracterized, and revealed his own research into the matter by not only locating the 3 articles that Shirley must have seen (but hadn't reproduced), but many others, including some contributions to Chat. He also later found the amusing Kylie Minogue blurbs, complete with photographs of Mike's daughter and nephew. I think it is fair to say that Orsam was the first to chronicle the full story and let interested parties see the articles for themselves and draw their own conclusions, and it's a bit petty to pooh-pooh your friend's valuable work. For the first time, we can fully appreciate not only that Barret was a freelance writer in the 1980s, but the interesting fact that his main audience and financial supprt had dried up because Celebrity went defunct. Barrett was left scrambling to make his mortgage payment, dreaming of new writing ventures to bring in the much-needed cash. Danny the Dolphin Boy wasn't cutting it, and what Barrett really needed was a best-seller--and fast.

10. Finally, in 2019, Robert Smith publishes the second edition of this work, and only now does he acknowledge that Barret published interviews and articles in the 1980s, but wrongly claims they 'weren't interviews as such' and states, without giving a source, that despite being late to the party, he now knows that Barrett merely handed in some random quotes and an unnamed "inhouse writer" did the rest.

Which is what I object to.

[Iconoclast]

May I ask a couple of questions regarding Maybrick?

You've come to the right place for two questions about James Maybrick, Rookster!

Is there any possibility whatsoever that the diary is authentic and written by Maybrick... but Maybrick was a fantasist who genuinely believed he was the Ripper, but in reality he still wasn't the Ripper?

This one occasionally gets an airing on these here airwaves but the notion is quickly dashed by the realisation that the scrapbook contains information which was not published to the public until as late as 1987, so the scrapbook is either authentic, a post-1986 hoax (the year Mike Barrett bought his word 'prosser', note), or else James Maybrick was a fantasist (or idle dreamer) who also happened to know a few London detectives who let slip some otherwise kept-from-the-public facts (such as the contents of Eddowes' pockets and Kelly's missing heart). You pays your money and you makes your choice, young Rooksy ...

Albert Bachert was a narcissistic fantasist who attached himself to the case, and so could Maybrick have been of the similar ilk and chose to write a diary full of fantasy?

I don't mean to be unduly pedantic, Rookeroo, but that wasn't two questions - that was one question asked twice, wasn't it? So, like one question and an irrelevant question? [Thank you Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant].

Ike
Teacher
Duracell Bunny
Google's Source

[erobitha]

Thank you for your message and to Keith for his guidance.

I am in the position where I know comparatively little about the Maybrick debate, and so for me it's important that those on this thread who do have an advanced and intricate knowledge, are aware that everything I write comes from a place of sincerity and respect.

I am the kind of person who likes to hypothesize and think outside the box, and so I always aim to come at the case from varying angles.
I am aware of the difference between hypothesis and theory and so I will refrain from making theories about Maybrick, because I am not in the position to make such theories.

I read the diary when I was in my teens and so its been a while since I read the material.
I will endeavour to obtain a copy of the diary and try to familiarise myself again with its contents.

I do have a hypothesis regarding Maybrick, but I will keep that to myself for the time being until I earn my stripes so to speak.

Thanks again for your message and to Keith for taking the time to acknowledge and advise me.

Regards

RD

I did initially think there could be a fantasist angle, but in his lifetime the C5 were not defined. Which to me means either it was Maybrick or the potential hoaxer had knowledge of the C5.

My own theory on Maybrick is I believe the watch to be 100% genuine. The science is too compelling to ignore. I’m open-minded to the diary being genuine but I have a theory it might have been created to support the watch. I even have a potential candidate who could be an interesting suspect for writing it.

What I will say is this debate can get quite heated at times, so be prepared.

[Iconoclast]

I've already answered most of this, Ike.

That may be true, but I did say I couldn't be arsed to look it up, didn't I? (A bit like I couldn't be arsed to critique my own brilliant Society's Pillar so I got Lord Orsam to do it for me - genius or what?!? I'm still not sure if he's twigged-on yet, by the way, so I'm going to do it again in 2026.)

1. In the first edition of The Diary of Jack the Ripper, there was not a PEEP about Barrett previously having been a writer. Nothing to suggest it whatsoever. In fact, we were told (falsely) that after receiving the diary in 1991, Barrett only then bought a word processor in order to write the diary's story for himself, but he was over his head, and thus he ultimately contacted a literary agent.

Okay. It's not the red flag you think you're waving, RJ, but point made - Shirley Harrison did not think (if she even knew) that Mike's amateur attempts at a literary career were worthy of note when she was writing a book about a scrapbook she genuinely believed James Maybrick wrote.

2. Yet, even before this, but not included in Harrison's book, Martin Chittenden in the Sunday Times' included an interesting but unexplained snippet that Barrett had written word puzzles for a children's magazine, Look-In. This doesn't sound to me like something that Mike would have spontaneously revealed. I have a theory about why and how Chittenden discovered this, but I'll leave my theories out of it.

So the viper Chittenden found out that Mike had submitted some word puzzles to Look-In. Unless the answers magically formed a story, I doubt even he would seek to make a literary career from it on his CV.

3. In subsequent editions of Harrison's book, a slow drip of information begins to morph Barrett from a scrap metal dealer into to a bloke who did a spot of writing, but never on any professional level.

Professional as in 'paid a few times for some articles' or professional as in 'significant years of genuine literary output under contract and appropriately recompensed'?

In Harrison's "Blake" edition, she now includes the Look-In bit, and admits that Barrett belonged to a local writer's circle, but for me, this only leaves the more discerning members of the public to wonder why this hadn't been said earlier, since any rational person knows that it should have been reported.

It absolutely should have been reported, I agree, but we don't have to see mendacity at work when it wasn't.

4. Feldman, in his 1998 (?) book, largely portrays Barrett as an illiterate drunk who can't string two words together ...

And that was true!

... and we later learn that someone had told Alec Voller that Barrett was a "mental vegetable." This, of course, is the image that you strenuously endorse and promote.

Well we weren't dealing with Hemingway's ghost here, RJ, were we?

5. In Ripper Diary: the Inside Story (2003) we are treated to the Devereux Sisters being surprised that Barrett has been portrayed as a "ordinary Liverpool bloke,' when they had heard he had been a journalist who had contributed to magazines, sometime before 1991. Which is a FAR CRY from what Harrison and Smith had published in 1994.

And who had simple Liverpool lasses heard this gem from? From the literary circles they were members of? From Melvin Bragg on the South Bank Show? No, of course not. They heard it from their dad who liked to have a few beers with the blowhard that was Michael Barrett. Great source material for your theory, I think not!

6. The same authors also reveal (page 150) that by at least 1994 Shirley Harrison had received three articles from D.C. Thompson publishers, showing Barrett had written for Celebrity magazine, which makes me wonder why more hadn't been made of this and revealed in Shirley's 'Blake' edition. No doubt you think it was "irrelevant," but I doubt the public would feel the same way.

It absolutely should have been reported, I agree, but we don't have to see mendacity at work when it wasn't.

7. As late as 2017, Robert Smith, in his own book on the subject, was still claiming Barrett was only responsible for children's puzzles in Look-In. He was entirely oblivious to the D.C. Thompson articles, and didn't mention them, despite Shirley Harrison having had this information for more than 20 years. This is what got Lord Orsam's goat, I think, and deservedly so.

It got Orsam's goat because - and mark me here, RJ - he is an excellent researcher (the dark matter to Keith Skinner's matter, you'll recall - that was a compliment not an insult) and his researcher genes were firing at Robert's disinterest; but Robert was an author putting forward a view and I'm guessing that he did not see Barrett's embarrassingly poor literary output in the 1980s as ever worth mentioning.

8. So it was at this point that your good friend, Lord Orsam, in writing a book review of Smith's efforts, mentioned that Barrett's writing career was being mischaracterized, and revealed his own research into the matter by not only locating the 3 articles that Shirley must have seen (but hadn't reproduced), but many others, including some contributions to Chat. He also later found the amusing Kylie Minogue blurbs, complete with photographs of Mike's daughter and nephew. I think it is fair to say that Orsam was the first to chronicle the full story and let interested parties see the articles for themselves and draw their own conclusions ...

All true, but all true of an excellent researcher.

and it's a bit petty to pooh-pooh your friend's valuable work.

I don't believe I ever have. He can't help being a key member of the underworld and the very spirit of the dark arts. I've never held it against him personally.

For the first time, we can fully appreciate not only that Barret was a freelance writer in the 1980s, but the interesting fact that his main audience and financial supprt had dried up because Celebrity went defunct. Barrett was left scrambling to make his mortgage payment, dreaming of new writing ventures to bring in the much-needed cash. Danny the Dolphin Boy wasn't cutting it, and what Barrett really needed was a best-seller--and fast.

But we leap from Danny the Dolphin Boy to a brilliant hoax of a Jack the Ripper journal which has kept us all enthralled for thirty years. Surely that gives you cause to pause and reflect on how rational it is to believe such evolutionary jumps are possible?

9. Finally, in 2019, Robert Smith publishes the second edition of this work, and only now does he acknowledge that Barret published interviews and articles in the 1980s, but wrongly claims they 'weren't interviews as such' and states, without giving a source, that despite being late to the party, he now knows that Barrett merely handed in some random quotes and an unnamed "inhouse writer" did the rest. Which is what I object to.

Fair enough. That's your right. Just don't go thinking it makes you right, RJ.

Hope this helps.

Ike

[The Rookie Detective]

I did initially think there could be a fantasist angle, but in his lifetime the C5 were not defined. Which to me means either it was Maybrick or the potential hoaxer had knowledge of the C5.

My own theory on Maybrick is I believe the watch to be 100% genuine. The science is too compelling to ignore. I’m open-minded to the diary being genuine but I have a theory it might have been created to support the watch. I even have a potential candidate who could be an interesting suspect for writing it.

What I will say is this debate can get quite heated at times, so be prepared.

Thank you kindly for your message.

I can imagine it does get quite heated, but I will try to remain impartial as best I can.

I have several questions regarding Maybrick, but I will try and pace myself.

I find the Watch absolutely fascinating; and believe that is one of the most powerful elements for those who favour Maybrick as the Ripper.


Regards

RD

[Iconoclast]

Thank you kindly for your message.
I can imagine it does get quite heated, but I will try to remain impartial as best I can.
I have several questions regarding Maybrick, but I will try and pace myself.
I find the Watch absolutely fascinating; and believe that is one of the most powerful elements for those who favour Maybrick as the Ripper.
Regards
RD

You mean the fact that it contains James Maybrick's signature including the highly idiosyncratic 'k'?

I find it fascinating and conclusive.