One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Gladiator]

So you just do again what I said you were doing, eg. Stage 2:

The man-up-you-coward defense-offense.

Are you familiar with irony?

All I know is that the person from whom the fake originated at one point signed a stat. dec. that he forged it and his partner's counter-explanation to quash that debacle reminds me of the LBJ quote.

Like all people taken in you are incredibly passive-aggressive to not face such a notion, and use rhetoric, like above, to shut down debates.

I rest my case!

[Gladiator]

All I know is that the person from whom the fake originated at one point signed a stat. dec. that he forged it and his partner's counter-explanation to quash that debacle reminds me of the LBJ quote.

I deleted the rest because I couldn't stand the posing.

No-one cares about the LBJ quote. But everyone will care about you poisoning the well with misinformation. Mike Barrett signed an "affadavid" (as I recall) stating he had forged the document. This was about 3-4 years after he had brought the diary to the world's attention and about 2-3 years after his wife added to that story by admitting it was she who had given it to Tony Devereaux in the first place.

I know you have admitted to knowing nothing whatsover about the Maybrick case so I'll quickly add here that no-one took his claims seriously (including the Serious Crime Squad at New Scotland Yard). His solicitor's retraction the next day clearly wasn't in your 'few artices'?

[Kaz]

Like all people taken in you are incredibly passive-aggressive to not face such a notion, and use rhetoric, like above, to shut down debates.

With respect, I'm not 'taken in', I'm just not willing to put the diary in the bin because the provenance doesn't suit...

If Anne first aired the diary with her grandfather in tow how would you view the diary?

[Chris]

Gladiator

There's something I've always been curious about. Maybe you can explain it.

Why did Mike Barrett place an advertisement for an 'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages' in a trade magazine on 19 March 1992?

I mean apart from the obvious reason.

[Gladiator]

Gladiator

There's something I've always been curious about. Maybe you can explain it.

Why did Mike Barrett place an advertisement for an 'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages' in a trade magazine on 19 March 1992?

I mean apart from the obvious reason.

Chris,

I know you're trying to be very clever here - Chris-Solves-Hoax-After-Twenty-Years!, and all that - but it won't wash and (trolling aside) can only have been inspired by ignorance of the facts. I don't recall the exact reason why he purchased what was in the end an 1891 diary (much to Anne's disgust at the waste of money) which presumably not even Mike Barrett could have imagined would fool the world?

I could look up the explanation but it might take me a while, so whilst I am doing so riddle me this, Mr Riddler: Apropos my comment above, If Barrett was seeking a diary for a Jack the Ripper hoax, why on earth would he advertise for an 'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890'? Do you think he lacked confidence that he might find an 1888 version and just thought "I know, I'll do a prequel!".

For the record, my recall of events does not include the line "must have at least 20 blank pages". Are you quite sure of your facts here, or have the years simply fine-tuned an urban myth of your deepest desiring?

Gladiator

[Chris]

Gladiator

You disappoint me. You were radiating such an aura of omniscience I thought you would be sure to know the answer. Instead, it seems you aren't even familiar with what Barrett's advertisement said!

Still, please let us know if you do manage to look up the answer anywhere.

[Gladiator]

Gladiator

You disappoint me. You were radiating such an aura of omniscience I thought you would be sure to know the answer. Instead, it seems you aren't even familiar with what Barrett's advertisement said!

Still, please let us know if you do manage to look up the answer anywhere.

Bang to rights there, sadly. But time will reveal all. I have some anual leave starting so here we go.

[Gladiator]

Gladiator

You disappoint me. You were radiating such an aura of omniscience I thought you would be sure to know the answer. Instead, it seems you aren't even familiar with what Barrett's advertisement said!

Still, please let us know if you do manage to look up the answer anywhere.

So, in his 'confession' Mike Barrett claimed that Anne had bought a diary (year not specified but one assumes 1888) in order to concost the fraud around January 1990 from a firm listed in the 1986 Writers and Artists Yearbook but they didn't use it because it was too small. It then turned out that Anne had indeed purchased a diary and still had the receipt for this diary and that it was dated after Mike had taken the Maybrick diary to London! Ouch. That doesn't make sense if the fraud was already out there. Maybe they were going to attempt a spare copy! Or thought they could double their money? Anyway, that can't be what you are referring to.

I'm still looking. I'm sure such a hoax-busting fact will leap out at me soon (despite having read Harrison I and II, Feldman, and Linder at least twice each and don't actually recall this gem).

Watch this space, folks ... Chris wouldn't get his facts wrong so it must be in there somewhere!

PS You could save me the effort and just tell me where I can find this crippling fact, Chris?

[Chris]

PS You could save me the effort and just tell me where I can find this crippling fact, Chris?

It was posted by Caroline Morris in 2007, quoting information presented by Keith Skinner at the so-called 'Trial of James Maybrick' in Liverpool that year.

On 22 May she wrote:
I can confirm that the advert placed on Mike Barrett’s behalf in March 1992 read: ‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’.

And the following day she added (after Alan Sharp said he had noted a slightly different wording):
The wording of the advert is precisely as I posted here. The advert appeared on March 19th, 1992, as a result of Mike contacting H.P. Bookfinders.

I think those posts were subsequently lost in a server crash, but I'm sure she will be able to confirm it if necessary.

[Gladiator]

Gladiator

You disappoint me. You were radiating such an aura of omniscience I thought you would be sure to know the answer. Instead, it seems you aren't even familiar with what Barrett's advertisement said!

Still, please let us know if you do manage to look up the answer anywhere.

So he placed the ad on March 19, 1992 (I still can't find any reference to it, incidentally), 10 days after he had spoken with Doreen Montgomery of the publishers about the diary on the 'phone. So he doesn't appear to have had it on March 19, but by April 13 when he appears in London it has been written. That would a least give us a date for the forger, but Lord they had to write it quickly.

[Gladiator]

It was posted by Caroline Morris in 2007, quoting information presented by Keith Skinner at the so-called 'Trial of James Maybrick' in Liverpool that year.

On 22 May she wrote:
I can confirm that the advert placed on Mike Barrett’s behalf in March 1992 read: ‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’.

And the following day she added (after Alan Sharp said he had noted a slightly different wording):
The wording of the advert is precisely as I posted here. The advert appeared on March 19th, 1992, as a result of Mike contacting H.P. Bookfinders.

I think those posts were subsequently lost in a server crash, but I'm sure she will be able to confirm it if necessary.

Hi Caz,

I think we need your help here?

Why would Mike have needed such a diary?

Time to turn to Linder et al, I think ...

Gladiator

[Gladiator]

It was posted by Caroline Morris in 2007, quoting information presented by Keith Skinner at the so-called 'Trial of James Maybrick' in Liverpool that year.

On 22 May she wrote:
I can confirm that the advert placed on Mike Barrett’s behalf in March 1992 read: ‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’.

And the following day she added (after Alan Sharp said he had noted a slightly different wording):
The wording of the advert is precisely as I posted here. The advert appeared on March 19th, 1992, as a result of Mike contacting H.P. Bookfinders.

I think those posts were subsequently lost in a server crash, but I'm sure she will be able to confirm it if necessary.

Chris,

Just for clarity here, if the servers crashed, how do you recall the details? Did you keep copies of Caz's posts?

Gladiator

[Chris]

Just for clarity here, if the servers crashed, how do you recall the details? Did you keep copies of Caz's posts?

Yes I did.

[jmenges]

Casebook used to release the threads archived on a CD-ROM or something back in those days.

JM

[Chris]

Casebook used to release the threads archived on a CD-ROM or something back in those days.

Yes. But I don't think they had been put on a CD for a while before the last crash (early in 2008).