One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hiya, Mike! Happy 2024.

I agree that most probably we will never know the truth for certain.

As for there being 'so many origin stories', I agree that something was 'going on' with the Barretts. Anne meekly went along with Mike's original story, that Tony gave him the diary without saying where it came from, until July 1994 when she added a prequel by claiming she had given it to Tony to give to Mike, asking Tony to say nothing.

As for Mike, when he deviated from his original story, he didn't just spill all the beans in the right order and prove that he and Anne created the diary or knew who did. That would have put the lid on it back in June 1994. The problem was that he could never tell a straight story, and the details he gave were either disprovable, unprovable or frankly not believable - like when he told Alan Gray all about how he bought the watch, faked the scratches inside it, then got a "friend" [who he refused to "grass" on] to take it across the water to Wallasey and plant it! You couldn't make it up - except that Mike did!

If there was a truth that both Anne and Mike were hiding, what was it?

In evidential terms, the 'provenance' only dates back to 9th March 1992, when Jack the Ripper's diary was first mentioned on the record by Mike in a phone call to London.

That's the starting point.

Some believe that Mike had not even set eyes on the scrapbook on that date, so could not have described what he had when phoning London.

It is my belief that on 8th March 1992, if someone had mentioned the concept of a diary by Jack the Ripper to Mike, they'd have got the blankest of blank looks from him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

The most obvious challenge that one faces when addressing the nightmarish intervention of Michael Barrett into the Maybrick scrapbook's emergence into the light of day is that - in disagreeing with the actual contribution it made (as opposed to the limited impact and relevance it should have had) - one has to rationalise why so many people seem so hell bent on pushing an argument which has zero explanatory power when defined by the degree of evidence to support it.

We know that the argument for Barrett-as-Hoaxer only has explanatory power if you are willing to suspend all of the normal rules of scientific enquiry. Let me ask you, dear readers, does that include YOU? Are you willing to believe something because it suits an argument you have either formed yourself (e.g., the scrapbook is not what I would have expected so it must be dodgy) or have adopted from others (e.g., Lord Orsam's magical mystery tour into events in Liverpool for which the sole piece of supporting evidence other than an utterly discredited affidavit is that apparently there was an auction held at Outhwaite & Litherland between March 9 and Aprii 12, 1992)?

If you have been honest enough to put your hand in the air at this point, are you willing to go further and answer the question, What drives you to fall back on a convenient - but unsupported - theory when there is a wealth of evidence out there screaming 'Possibly Not Fake!' louder than The Sunday Times could ever shout 'Fake!'. I've always been fascinated by the human mind - how it projects what it wants to believe onto canvasses blank or otherwise, regardless of what might justify the picture thus emerging. Why do we do that?

We know that the argument for Barrett-as-Hoaxer only has explanatory power if you are willing to suspend all of the normal rules of scientific enquiry. Why do we do that and without any sense of personal recrimination?

I suspect that it is because, when confronted with something which breaks a long-held paradigm, it is a natural human instinct to 'rationalise' it away even if there is no rationale to properly do so. If we sense a door is slightly open and it suits us to go through it, some will gently prise it wider and slip quietly in and some will simply kick it in, but pretty much all of us will justify what we have done on the basis that the door was not locked so the right of entry had therefore been established.

Next time you go through that door, dear readers, gie yersel a shak (as they say so wonderfully in Aberdeen) and ask yourself, "Why do I believe that the ground has been laid for me to adopt this view?" and see if you can enumerate the evidence which supports your view and then be honest with yourself and wonder, have I been duped by my own human urge to see this a certain way?

Given that there is not a scrap of proper evidence to support the notion that oh-thank-God-for-that-it-was-Barrett-and-Barrett-all-along, why would anyone subscribe to that belief?

Exactly how deeply unscientific are we willing to go to explain away the pesky Maybrick scrapbook? Are there even deeper wells of illogic and fancy yet to be sampled? And - now that all of the wells we know of have dried up - when do we turn away and say, "That whole episode was not healthy for us"?

The Great Lord of Darkness himself - that Chigwell Dementor and erstwhile Death Eater - has noted on his new drainpipe-replacement website that I misrepresented the crucial piece of evidence which compels him to argue that black is white, the sky is made of bananas, Chelsea FC is a shop selling frozen fish, and Mike Barrett is an honourable chap who definitely hoaxed that Victorian scrapbook thingy which he [said Dementor] wishes he could wish away.

It seems that the critical evidence is Barrett seeking an ‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’.

Silly me! How could I have missed this ringing bell red alert siren klaxon loud noise red flag rather obvious confirmation that Barrett was looking for a suitable vehicle for his nascent hoax back in March 1992? What an idiot I must be, eh, dear readers?

Well, I'm clearly a complete twat but I wonder if any of you lot out there - as perspicacious as you are regarding these things - can think of a less nefarious reason for his wanting something that could be shown to the police as "Oh, this Victorian diary with blank pages in, you mean?". Let me know if you can think of anything.

It really has got me stumped, dear readers and - as you know - I'm not normally lost for words where Jack is concerned. Why would Mike Barrett - recently having acquired a genuinely priceless diary of Jack the Ripper with a full and evidential confession inside, an absolute fortune about to be made, but obviously a complete knock-off from someone who might come asking for it back, want to acquire something that might pass as it if that visit ever occurred?

Maybe Voldemort's twin was right. Yes, that must be it. Barrett wanted that tiny 1891 diary to create a brilliant hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper and earn himself a whopping ten years in chokey for his efforts - it wasn't about the money or the credibility at all - he just wanted to waste his time and then sacrifice his liberty. It all makes so much sense when you think about it.

Still, if anyone can think of another reason why he would have wanted a diary from possibly one year (and then definitely two years) after James Maybrick died - and one you'd barely be able to stick a postage stamp onto no less - do let us all know.

[caz]

Morning Ike,

I suppose it all depends on whether one is both able and willing to believe a single word sworn to in Mike's affidavit dated 5th January 1995, lovingly typed up by Alan Gray.

Later the same month, Gray already knew this statement had at least one error: Tony Devereux did not die in 1990, but in 1991. He soon heard that another date was in question, when Mike told him he had obtained the scrapbook, not in January 1990 as he claimed in the affidavit [nor from the awesome auction held on 31st March 1992 - you could have knocked me down with a feather], but "six weeks previous" to his meeting with Doreen, on "13th April". Okay, so Mike got the year wrong on this occasion - he said both these memorable events took place in 1991, following Tony's fall at Christmas 1990 - but he was spot on as always with the actual date of the diary's London debut. As quick on the uptake as ever, Gray was able to work out in a flash that six weeks back from 13th April took them to March, except that the year would have been 1992.

Question for the weekend: why did Mike tell Gray that he had obtained the scrapbook six weeks before taking it to show Doreen?

[We both know it was only five weeks, don't we? ]

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Why would Mike Barrett - recently having acquired a genuinely priceless diary of Jack the Ripper with a full and evidential confession inside, an absolute fortune about to be made, but obviously a complete knock-off from someone who might come asking for it back, want to acquire something that might pass as it if that visit ever occurred?

So, fearing that Eddie might rat him off to the police after selling him the priceless Diary of Jack the Ripper for twenty quid, Barrett--always a model of foresight--assumed that the only thing Eddie would tell Dodd (or the diary's owner would already know for himself) is that the 'old book' could be forensically dated to 1880-1890 and that it would have blank pages--at least twenty of them.

For some reason, our hero Bongo Barrett assumed that Dodd wouldn't know that the 'old book' was a photograph album, or that it was oversized, or that it was blue-black in colour, or that it had pages & pages of scribbled handwriting in it, etc. Nor did Barrett fear that Eddie Lyons might have alerted him or the police to this fact.

In Mike's fevered mind, Dodd and the inquiring police would only know that the infamous 'old book' dug out the non-existent dumpster had 'at least twenty blank pages' and dated to 1880-1890.

Their knowledge of the stolen booty would only extend to the 'unusual' request that Mike made to Martin Earl!

A convenient if bizarre theory, Ike, but one, alas, that is not remotely credible to anyone who hasn't already sipped the Maybrickian Kool Aid.

To be blunt, I've been listening to Trump's lawyers argue in court, and even they don't sink to such a desperate level of convoluted special pleading. They come close, though. I'll give you that. They come close.

[StevenOwl]

In Mike's fevered mind, Dodd and the inquiring police would only know that the infamous 'old book' dug out the non-existent dumpster had 'at least twenty blank pages' and dated to 1880-1890.

Their knowledge of the stolen booty would only extend to the 'unusual' request that Mike made to Martin Earl!

But if Eddie found the scrapbook and removed it without showing anybody, and then sold it to Mike without anybody else seeing it, it would be Eddie's word against Mike's that the little red diary wasn't the item in question. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

[Kattrup]

But if Eddie found the scrapbook and removed it without showing anybody, and then sold it to Mike without anybody else seeing it, it would be Eddie's word against Mike's that the little red diary wasn't the item in question. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

Why would he have to show anything at all then?

[erobitha]

But if Eddie found the scrapbook and removed it without showing anybody, and then sold it to Mike without anybody else seeing it, it would be Eddie's word against Mike's that the little red diary wasn't the item in question. It seems perfectly plausible to me.

I agree. Mike’s “perceived” need for an insurance policy was for a small window of time. Once it was not needed he lost interest in it. Such as paying for it. Which Anne did in the end.

He did not know how things were going to unfold over the few days of contacting Doreen and receiving the red diary.

[StevenOwl]

Why would he have to show anything at all then?

Mike would have to produce something if anyone came knocking for it. Or else he'd have to completely deny the exchange with Eddie took place. I can see why he would prefer the former.

[rjpalmer]

Mike would have to produce something if anyone came knocking for it. Or else he'd have to completely deny the exchange with Eddie took place. I can see why he would prefer the former.

Then why did this "something" have to have 20 blank pages and date between 1880 and 1890? Those are the details that Ike can't explain.

If Eddie reassured Mike that no one had seen the 'old book,' Mike could have either denied even knowing Eddie (which according to Lyons is true--they didn't know each other), or Mike could have shown the cops anything.

"Yes officer, I did buy a book down the boozer, but it's a bit embarrassing. It was How to Seduce and Maintain a Mistress by Mitch L. Thomas. (Newcastle Books, 1952). I was afraid my missus would find it, so I threw it away after reading a chapter or two. Disgraceful stuff. No wonder it was kept hidden under a loose floorboard!"

We are still back to the aged-old question. Why did Barrett need 'at least 20 blank pages' that dated between 1880 and 1890?

The doppelganger theory makes no sense whatsoever.

Not in the real world.

[Yabs]

Mike would have to produce something if anyone came knocking for it. Or else he'd have to completely deny the exchange with Eddie took place. I can see why he would prefer the former.

So in this police at the door scenario-
Barrett is happy to confess that he received a stolen item from Battlecrease, but gives a decoy item to the police when he confesses?

So he hasn’t escaped whatever penalty there may be for receiving the stolen item, he just gives them a decoy, in the hope of keeping the real one.

Then what does he do with the real one?
he can hardly go on to flog the JTR diary with text depicting the author living at Battlecrease after all that.

[Yabs]

In a world where Barrett did get the diary from Eddie and the police later came knocking, he would be far better off confessing and handing it back to them with the disclaimer that he bought it off a “mate” in good faith and didn’t realise its origin or importance until he read it.

At least he could still sell his story or even write a book about how he came to realise he had the ripper diary in his possession and can now reveal who the ripper was.

Running the risk of being arrested for fraud by handing over a decoy and never being able to make use of the real diary is no benefit to him at all.

[Iconoclast]

Then why did this "something" have to have 20 blank pages and date between 1880 and 1890? Those are the details that Ike can't explain.

Mark of the deceiver is when they make claims that aren't true (see quotation above) and mark of the ill-thought-out is when they make claims that aren't even logical (see Yabs, RJ, Kattrup. above).

We are clearly not debating some objective set of facts which we know for certain were swirling around Mike Barrett's brain the day he ordered that copy of Jack the Ripper's diary, but we can be confident that the following are very likely to be true:

1) He knew that he had 'found' the find of the century and he was not wishing to give it up easily.
2) He knew that he had been seen in The Saddle Inn with Eddie Lyons and most probably Jim Bowling earlier that day (or the day before).
3) He knew that the Jack the Ripper memoir was almost certainly a knock-off so he knew there was a possibility that - in the course of the next few weeks - he might get a knock on the door from someone (official or otherwise) seeking the memoir back.

It's not particularly difficult so far, is it? No, I didn't think so. No need to turn to VAR for any 'clear and obvious' errors just yet.

So, what does he think is a logical and clever action to take to pre-empt the possibility of losing his priceless memoir? Well, whether we or anyone else would have done differently, he thinks it would be useful to have a second Victorian record within which he would ideally (but not categorically) need at least 20 blank pages. Why would he need at least 20 blank pages? I don't have any difficulty coming up with two perfectly plausible reasons (despite RJ's deception, above). The first was in case he wanted to copy some or all of the scrapbook text into the copy to overcome the challenge of his pursuer quoting from the original (Pursuer: "My copy had doggerel in such as "Blah blah blah"." MB: "That's right. Here it is in my Jack the Ripper diary so I guess I'd better give it back to you with my humble apologies."). The second reason was in case a less specific identification was attempted (Pursuer: "My copy had at least twenty blank pages at the end." MB: "That's right. Here they are in my Jack the Ripper diary so I guess I'd better give it back to you with my humble apologies.").

Now, nothing that motivated Mike Barrett in those early, excited days needs to make sense to us. It only needed to have made sense to Mike. It is not for us to rationalise his thoughts and actions. That is not our right. We can question whether something is factual (for this, we turn to any available evidence) but we cannot question a person's motivation based upon their rational (or, indeed, irrational) thought processes. Mike Barrett wanted something that looked like what he had recently acquired because 1) he knew he shouldn't have it and 2) he knew what he had acquired was priceless on many different levels.

So he sought a copy, a duplicate, a doppelganger, a mirror image, a whatever-you-want-to-call-it-because-it-doesn't-alter-his-potential-reasons-for-acting-as-he-did. The year was not critical if he was just going to say "Oh yeah, here's the Victorian diary I got off Eddie Lyons". Pretty much any diary around that time would suffice because the copy doesn't have to be a kosher 1888 diary in order to achieve what Barrett was seeking to achieve. There, I've shown RJ how wrong his claim (above) was. I wonder if he'll retract his outrageous claim, dear readers?

And here's the real rub of the matter: The date of such a diary copy would have been of unequivocal importance to a nascent hoaxer - he or she could have settled for a Victorian diary from 1837 all the way up to 1887 but - ideally - they would want one from 1888. The years 1889 and 1890 would be out (the nature of the text precludes a retrospective from 1889 - it is clearly meant to have been written at the time of the crimes themselves). We are told by certain people that Mike Barrett was a smart cookie. Would he - setting up a hoax - have proactively requested a diary which James Maybrick could not possibly have written in and (indeed) have agreed to buy a diary from 1891 which was too small for Jack's faked diary written in 1992?

Only you can decide, dear readers. But please reflect - as you decide - on whether my theory stands up to the facts and whether Lord Orsam and his acolyte's theory falls miserably on the same.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

In a world where Barrett did get the diary from Eddie and the police later came knocking, he would be far better off confessing and handing it back to them with the disclaimer that he bought it off a “mate” in good faith and didn’t realise its origin or importance until he read it.
At least he could still sell his story or even write a book about how he came to realise he had the ripper diary in his possession and can now reveal who the ripper was.
Running the risk of being arrested for fraud by handing over a decoy and never being able to make use of the real diary is no benefit to him at all.

There is no evidence that Mike Barrett knew who Jack the Ripper was in March 1992 (it remains unclear when Maybrick was actually first identified as the author) so how would he have capitalised on that opportunity if he gave the priceless scrapbook back?

Think it through before you post, Yabs, because it's tiresome my having to correct non sequiturs constantly in order to protect my dear readers from erring in their thinking.

[Iconoclast]

So in this police at the door scenario-
Barrett is happy to confess that he received a stolen item from Battlecrease ...

Could you quickly just draw our attention to where this was ever claimed, please, Yabs? Who said he would admit to receiving a stolen item from Battlecrease? Unfortunately, some of my dear readers will read your comment and assume that it is based upon some sort of evidence when - in fact - you've just blatantly made it up in order to swing an argument your way, haven't you?

Shame on you.

... but gives a decoy item to the police when he confesses?

That's clearly the key bit, yes. 'Decoy' - good word for it.

So he hasn’t escaped whatever penalty there may be for receiving the stolen item, he just gives them a decoy, in the hope of keeping the real one.

Wrong and then right. Not bad - fifty per cent accuracy and attention to detail.

Then what does he do with the real one?
he can hardly go on to flog the JTR diary with text depicting the author living at Battlecrease after all that.

Well here you are asking us to step into the mind of Mike Barrett from some 32 years ago so you're asking a lot. I've answered the big questions about why he sought the decoy. I'm not sure I can tell you how much further Barrett thought his little ploy through, I'm afraid. The good news for me is that my not immediately being able to answer your question has no bearing whatsoever on whether I am right or not.

[Iconoclast]

Mike would have to produce something if anyone came knocking for it. Or else he'd have to completely deny the exchange with Eddie took place. I can see why he would prefer the former.

That is because you are able to apply logic without blinkers on, Owly, and for that I thank you.