One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Correct, as ever, ero b. It's the lack of blinkers, I think, which help the likes of us cut through all the illogical speculation and the pompous whatiffery of the myopic.

[Iconoclast]

Why would he have to show anything at all then?

Well he clearly didn't have to show anything at all. That is not the point of what he might have done. He was just seeking a decoy which he might have used or might not have used. It cost him 10p for a 'phonecall so I'm thinking he wasn't worrying too much about the cost of potentially protecting his literally priceless Victorian scrapbook. Are you saying that - in the same circumstances - this option would never ever have occurred to you (whether you acted on that thought or not)?

[Yabs]

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.

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t bother to post here often.
No shame here ike, if the police turn up at his door looking for a diary and you have Barrett handing them a decoy, then he’s confessing to receiving a stolen item regardless if the item is a decoy or not.

[erobitha]

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t bother to post here often.
No shame here ike, if the police turn up at his door looking for a diary and you have Barrett handing them a decoy, then he’s confessing to receiving a stolen item regardless if the item is a decoy or not.

Mike claims he got something from a bloke in the pub and has no idea where it came from beyond that.

This was his original story, anyway.

If the police demanded to see what he had, he could hand over the red diary. "Had no idea it was stolen, honest!"

Mike requesting at least 20 blank pages could have been him thinking he could write his version of the diary in the decoy in case whoever alerted the police claimed there was content in it.

Mike's logic, if you do not know by now, was never the most sound at the best of times.

[Yabs]

Mike claims he got something from a bloke in the pub and has no idea where it came from beyond that.

This was his original story, anyway.

If the police demanded to see what he had, he could hand over the red diary. "Had no idea it was stolen, honest!"

Mike requesting at least 20 blank pages could have been him thinking he could write his version of the diary in the decoy in case whoever alerted the police claimed there was content in it.

Mike's logic, if you do not know by now, was never the most sound at the best of times.

Thanks for the reply ero.
so the police turn up to question Mike about a diary taken from Battlecrease and he does as you suggested and says “I had no idea it was stolen, honest”, gives them the decoy and he’s now left with the original he can do nothing with.

he’s just adding to his crimes with no benefit to himself.

[Iconoclast]

Mike claims he got something from a bloke in the pub and has no idea where it came from beyond that.
This was his original story, anyway.
If the police demanded to see what he had, he could hand over the red diary. "Had no idea it was stolen, honest!"
Mike requesting at least 20 blank pages could have been him thinking he could write his version of the diary in the decoy in case whoever alerted the police claimed there was content in it.
Mike's logic, if you do not know by now, was never the most sound at the best of times.

Perfect response, ero b. Saved me the job, cheers.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for the reply ero.
so the police turn up to question Mike about a diary taken from Battlecrease and he does as you suggested and says “I had no idea it was stolen, honest”, gives them the decoy and he’s now left with the original he can do nothing with.

he’s just adding to his crimes with no benefit to himself.

Have you never done something - even once - in your life that wasn't 100% fully-thought-out taking care to consider all possible outcomes over the next few days, weeks, months, and even years?

If you have not, then - wow - you're a seriously focused guy.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t bother to post here often.

You don't post here often because you know I'm patrolling its streets and I'm ruthless at exposing faulty logic and incorrect assertions - because SOMEONE HAS TO!

My dear readers deserve no less from I ...

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for the reply ero.
so the police turn up to question Mike about a diary taken from Battlecrease and he does as you suggested and says “I had no idea it was stolen, honest”, gives them the decoy and he’s now left with the original he can do nothing with.
he’s just adding to his crimes with no benefit to himself.

The one thing he would not be doing is adding to his crimes by producing the decoy: if he ever felt backed into a corner by his decoy story, he could always say that - actually - he bought it off Martin Earl at HP Bookbinders (or whatever his company was called), and produce whatever receipt Martin had provided him with.

Unlike the mythical receipt from Outhwaite & Litherland, of course ...

[Yabs]

Have you never done something - even once - in your life that wasn't 100% fully-thought-out taking care to consider all possible outcomes over the next few days, weeks, months, and even years?

If you have not, then - wow - you're a seriously focused guy.

Yes of course, haven’t we all?
So you know it’s a daft idea, but it’s not your daft idea, it’s Mikes due to his infamous lack of logic, and you’re just letting us know what he was thinking.
Ok got ya.

[Yabs]

The one thing he would not be doing is adding to his crimes by producing the decoy: if he ever felt backed into a corner by his decoy story, he could always say that - actually - he bought it off Martin Earl at HP Bookbinders (or whatever his company was called), and produce whatever receipt Martin had provided him with.

Unlike the mythical receipt from Outhwaite & Litherland, of course ...

So he gives the decoy to the police in the hope of passing it off as the diary, then when pushed into a corner he produces the Martin Earl receipt and says sorry I wasn’t being truthful when I gave you a fake diary I actually purchased that one- and you don’t think that’s a crime?
im afraid it is, Ike.

[Yabs]

You don't post here often because you know I'm patrolling its streets and I'm ruthless at exposing faulty logic and incorrect assertions - because SOMEONE HAS TO!

My dear readers deserve no less from I ...

It’s nothing to do with your reply’s that are arguing your point of view after I’ve posted Ike.
It’s to do with being told, “shame on you” when I do post

Maybe you shouldn’t be so patronising to your “dear readers” and let them make up their own minds

[erobitha]

Thanks for the reply ero.
so the police turn up to question Mike about a diary taken from Battlecrease and he does as you suggested and says “I had no idea it was stolen, honest”, gives them the decoy and he’s now left with the original he can do nothing with.

he’s just adding to his crimes with no benefit to himself.

I’m not saying his logic was ever sound in most things but he really was walking into complete unknown territory after the 9th of March - a whole myriad of scenarios could have crossed his mind.

Also, it is worth taking into consideration that he did not want his own name being used early on and wanted to try and be as anonymous as possible. When it was pointed out to him that was not possible he became more visible.

I know the pro Barrett Hoax crowd will argue that is because he forged it and do not want the world knowing who he was, but he did play ball after a bit of persuasion. As the evidence suggests he was rather more concerned with people in Liverpool knowing his identity, and I guess them putting two and two together.

[rjpalmer]

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."

Well, there we have it, folks.

Tom Mitchell believes Mike Barrett sought a blank or partially blank late Victorian Diary from Martin Earl in Oxford in the weeks before coming to London in order to write his own Jack the Ripper Diary.

Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this?
.
And we have been told by the authors of Inside Story that Earl mailed Mike this 'surrogate' diary on March 26 1992, so it must have been while Mike was eagerly awaiting its arrival that he popped down to the local art shop to obtain a suitable manuscript ink for the project.

But wait. I do sense a problem.

We've been told that the maroon diary is still basically blank and stamped 1891, and with nary a hint of a Jack the Ripper Diary inside it.

This can only mean one thing.

When the diary arrived on or about March 28th, 1992, Mike must have immediately abandoned his plan when he realized the diary sent by Earl wasn't even remotely a convincing 'surrogate' for what Dowling and Lyons must have seen and could describe. After all, not once did Mike put pen to paper inside the maroon diary.

So, it must have been at this point that Mike cast it aside unused and went looking for a more suitable over-sized, blue black photo album at somewhere like Outhwaite and Litherland--a 'surrogate' that would match what he had seen down the pub and what he knew Dowling and Lyons could describe to the police.

My God, Ike. Do you know what this must mean?

You've cracked the case!

Clearly, the Diary as we currently know it IS Mike Barrett's "doppelganger." It explains everything. The texts reliance on Bernard Ryan. Mike's strange ability to come up with the Crashaw quote. The anachronisms. The failure to imitate Maybrick's handwriting. The initial lack of ink bronzing, etc.

What we are looking at is Barrett's "doppelganger."

The real diary is still out there somewhere. Probably in the hands of Lyons or Dowling.

Well done, Ike. Well done.

[Iconoclast]

It’s nothing to do with your reply’s that are arguing your point of view after I’ve posted Ike.
It’s to do with being told, “shame on you” when I do post

Maybe you shouldn’t be so patronising to your “dear readers” and let them make up their own minds

Okay, I'll apologise for the 'Shame on you', Yabs. It wasn't meant to actually offend but - rather - to make a frustrated point.