One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Harry D]

• He didn't take Kelly's key away with him (we don't know that for sure)
• Aberline wasn't prominant at the time (he was)
• Obviously you won't be saying his brother didn't write lyrics!!!
• There were no coins at Chapman's feet (he doesn't claim it)
• Et cetera

Aha, what's this, a preemptive strike?

"One ring, two rings. A farthing one and two." It's self-evident what the diarist was referring to. He was perpetuating the myth that coins were left besides Annie Chapman's body, a myth that was finally debunked by Philip Sugden's book. What else could he be talking about?

The diarist lists several items in Eddowes' possession. These items were found in her partially torn pocket. This would mean that the killer ransacked Eddowes' pocket, examined the goods, and then returned them instead of leaving them with the rest of her gear which was left next to the body.

The other murders the diarist refers to are completely unverifiable.

The diarist engages in "rhyming verse" to outdo his brother Michael, only problem there is that Michael Maybrick only composed music, he wasn't a lyricist. Surely something that the real James Maybrick would've been aware of? Don't tell me, another brainfart on his part?

Tell me, what insight into the murders does the diarist give us that he couldn't have gleaned from contemporaneous or modern sources?

[caz]

Apologies - got my facts wrong!

[caz]

Not so sure about that. If the Diary had come to us all not through the hands of Barrett, and/or had come with a 100% genuine Battlecrease provenance, today's Diary detractors would still not accept JM as JTR. They'd simply all be crying 'old hoax'.

Hi Steven,

And I for one wouldn't blame them at all. While I am convinced the diary came out of Maybrick's house, I also believe it to be an old hoax. Why it should worry anyone to think it came out of Battlecrease I have no idea. It wouldn't get us any closer to who wrote it or why.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Harry D. The premise of this thread is reductio ad absurdum. I mean, you could just pick a suspect at random, like Lechmere, for example, and say, "now prove he didn't do it?"

Moreover, what "incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact" proves that Maybrick was the Ripper, or even likely to have been?

I agree, John, but while the thread's title may get the burden of proof backwards, nobody has to contribute to it with 'facts' which refute the diary.

Similarly, I don't suppose I can expect anyone on this thread to come up with one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves Mike Barrett had a hand in creating the diary, knew who did, or was even likely to have done.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The diarist engages in "rhyming verse" to outdo his brother Michael, only problem there is that Michael Maybrick only composed music, he wasn't a lyricist. Surely something that the real James Maybrick would've been aware of? Don't tell me, another brainfart on his part?

Where's that sound they make on QI when (usually Alan Davies) drops a clanger?

Michael most certainly was a lyricist, and the diarist - as well as James - knew it well enough. Just because he was more famous for composing music and most people were understandably not aware in 1992, when the diary first came to light, that he also wrote lyrics, too many jumped to the premature conclusion that the diarist was the ignorant one.

The funny thing about the 'breasts' argument that says a killer would never forget what he had just done, and need to read the news reports to remind himself, is that when the killer Albert Fish had just killed a little girl and her remains were still grinning up at him from the corner of his room, he couldn't remember that it was a girl and supposed he had kidnapped and murdered a boy.

Not that I think it was James Maybrick struggling to recall where he had really left Kelly's bits and pieces. It's just one of those interesting little things I'd liked to have thought of myself, had I read about Fish and wanted to make Maybrick equally barking mad and away with the fairies in his own journal.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

Hi Steven,

And I for one wouldn't blame them at all. While I am convinced the diary came out of Maybrick's house, I also believe it to be an old hoax. Why it should worry anyone to think it came out of Battlecrease I have no idea. It wouldn't get us any closer to who wrote it or why.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh, absolutely Caz. Far too much weight is being placed on the Battlecrease provenance. It proves nothing, and nor would an example of JM's handwriting which matched the diary - the goalposts would simply be moved again to the Diary being a work of fantasy penned by Sir Jim. In fact I'm not sure what evidence could possibly exist which would back up JM as a likely suspect, but I doubt anything will ever surface.

BTW - I'm only just reading 'The Inside Story' for the first time. Highly enjoyable, good work. It's such a shame that we're unlikely to ever get to the bottom of the truth about the Diary as it's such a fascinating story.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, John, but while the thread's title may get the burden of proof backwards, nobody has to contribute to it with 'facts' which refute the diary.

Similarly, I don't suppose I can expect anyone on this thread to come up with one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves Mike Barrett had a hand in creating the diary, knew who did, or was even likely to have done.

Love,

Caz
X

I have to disagree with you there.

You cannot discount that Barrett signed and swore on oath a legal document. In that document he sets out a story in great detail as to how the diary was purportedly written, In that he admits to being concerned in the writing of that diary. So on that and that alone there is initial proof that he was directly involved in the writing.

Now if he did not write the diary, then he must have known who did. or at least the provenance of the diary because he initially says he was given the diary by a man who at the time had since died, an account which he later retracts in favour of the above.

If he did not have a hand in the writing, then again he must have known who it was who gave him the original prepared statement which he took to the solicitors to have transcribed into the first affidavit. Even someone like Barrett who is supposed to have been of low intelligence must have been aware that he was involved in some form of a conspiracy.

Where is the evidence which negates all of the above? and exonerates him for all suspicion. The answer is there cant be any, because the facts and his actions are there for all to see.

I dont have the time but perhaps someone might like to create a time line chart showing all the events from when the diary first came to light, along with all the main players and the dates of their involvements, that might give us a few more clues, an exercise for David Orsam perhaps ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, absolutely Caz. Far too much weight is being placed on the Battlecrease provenance. It proves nothing, and nor would an example of JM's handwriting which matched the diary - the goalposts would simply be moved again to the Diary being a work of fantasy penned by Sir Jim. In fact I'm not sure what evidence could possibly exist which would back up JM as a likely suspect, but I doubt anything will ever surface.

BTW - I'm only just reading 'The Inside Story' for the first time. Highly enjoyable, good work. It's such a shame that we're unlikely to ever get to the bottom of the truth about the Diary as it's such a fascinating story.

The truth is still out there, someone will talk eventually, and when they do it will be squeaky bum time for some.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Caz - in #2039 you said:

"Keith made the remark in Liverpool, in response to something the late great Jeremy Beadle put to him there. It was off the cuff, not planned, and he has said very little about it publicly since…I really don't believe Keith's intention was to make 'a big deal' of it. If anything, the reactions of others built it up into one for him!"

So you are talking about an off the cuff comment made nearly 10 years ago. People's views change.

The notion that Keith Skinner still holds to that opinion today is far from "backed up to the hilt". In fact, it's clearly no more than an assumption on your part.

Hi David,

Firstly, I didn't mean 'the notion' that Keith holds to that opinion today is 'backed up to the hilt'; I wrote that his position is backed up to the hilt.

Secondly, I was slightly disappointed to see you state as a 'fact' that it's 'clearly no more than an assumption' (or worse - a 'notion') on my part that his position on the Battlecrease evidence remains the same. Whatever you may have assumed yourself, why would I need, or indeed want, to post less than professional 'assumptions' about Keith's thinking? We are co-authors of Ripper Diary, so if I hadn't already known for certain what his current thinking was, I'd have asked him before commenting on it publicly. I trust we can now put this behind us and move on?

Hoping to have time for that mammoth catch-up soon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh, absolutely Caz. Far too much weight is being placed on the Battlecrease provenance. It proves nothing, and nor would an example of JM's handwriting which matched the diary - the goalposts would simply be moved again to the Diary being a work of fantasy penned by Sir Jim. In fact I'm not sure what evidence could possibly exist which would back up JM as a likely suspect, but I doubt anything will ever surface.

BTW - I'm only just reading 'The Inside Story' for the first time. Highly enjoyable, good work. It's such a shame that we're unlikely to ever get to the bottom of the truth about the Diary as it's such a fascinating story.

Cheers Steven. Hope you continue to enjoy the book.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have to disagree with you there.

You cannot discount that Barrett signed and swore on oath a legal document. In that document he sets out a story in great detail as to how the diary was purportedly written, In that he admits to being concerned in the writing of that diary. So on that and that alone there is initial proof that he was directly involved in the writing.

Proof, Trevor? That's a strong word. Surely, if you were right, you and I wouldn't still be posting on the subject all these years later. Have you never come across anyone in your old line of business who was prepared to swear something on oath which was a load of old cobblers? I find that almost as hard to believe as Mike having any inside knowledge at all about the diary's creation.

Now if he did not write the diary, then he must have known who did. or at least the provenance of the diary because he initially says he was given the diary by a man who at the time had since died, an account which he later retracts in favour of the above.

And? Is that your 'proof', or was there something else?

If he did not have a hand in the writing, then again he must have known who it was who gave him the original prepared statement which he took to the solicitors to have transcribed into the first affidavit. Even someone like Barrett who is supposed to have been of low intelligence must have been aware that he was involved in some form of a conspiracy.

At the time he badly wanted to shaft Paul Feldman (as did one or two others), and 'confessing' in a legal document that the diary was a modern hoax certainly fit that bill.

I dont have the time but perhaps someone might like to create a time line chart showing all the events from when the diary first came to light, along with all the main players and the dates of their involvements, that might give us a few more clues, an exercise for David Orsam perhaps ?

It's been done, Trevor, and was used as a basis for everything in Ripper Diary. But if you already have all the proof you need, why do you ask for more clues? Mike was the only person who could really have explained to you why he claimed all those things but had to engage an investigator to try and come up with the supporting evidence, but sadly he is no longer with us.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Proof, Trevor? That's a strong word. Surely, if you were right, you and I wouldn't still be posting on the subject all these years later. Have you never come across anyone in your old line of business who was prepared to swear something on oath which was a load of old cobblers? I find that almost as hard to believe as Mike having any inside knowledge at all about the diary's creation.



And? Is that your 'proof', or was there something else?



At the time he badly wanted to shaft Paul Feldman (as did one or two others), and 'confessing' in a legal document that the diary was a modern hoax certainly fit that bill.



It's been done, Trevor, and was used as a basis for everything in Ripper Diary. But if you already have all the proof you need, why do you ask for more clues? Mike was the only person who could really have explained to you why he claimed all those things but had to engage an investigator to try and come up with the supporting evidence, but sadly he is no longer with us.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz

The proof is there, Barrett was by his actions, involved in a conspiracy to defraud, as to who the other persons were, I have my suspicions but at this time they cannot be proven.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

Caz

The proof is there, Barrett was by his actions, involved in a conspiracy to defraud, as to who the other persons were, I have my suspicions but at this time they cannot be proven.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Goodness, Trevor, old Walter Mitty was known for the occasional meandering fantasy and appeared for all the world to believe each one as he wove them (obviously all fictional).

I'm afraid old Mike Barrett (RIP) brought the fiction very much to life. He really was a modern day Walter Mitty in flesh and blood not ink and paper, and I'm afraid his version of any event must be suspect.

His constant 'new revelations' were all about maintaining his very slender grasp of the facts as the journal slowly eased him out of its storyline. He needed to be at the centre of every version of the journal, even though even he must have realised somewhere deep within him that he was simply out of his depth.

Honestly, let the man rest. There's another - much longer gone - we need to be chasing ...

[Harry D]

Michael most certainly was a lyricist, and the diarist - as well as James - knew it well enough.

Shirley Harrison did not do her homework?

The funny thing about the 'breasts' argument that says a killer would never forget what he had just done, and need to read the news reports to remind himself, is that when the killer Albert Fish had just killed a little girl and her remains were still grinning up at him from the corner of his room, he couldn't remember that it was a girl and supposed he had kidnapped and murdered a boy.

Would you prefer we give the diarist a pass for getting important facts wrong?

[Iconoclast]

Aha, what's this, a preemptive strike?

"One ring, two rings. A farthing one and two." It's self-evident what the diarist was referring to. He was perpetuating the myth that coins were left besides Annie Chapman's body, a myth that was finally debunked by Philip Sugden's book. What else could he be talking about?

The diarist lists several items in Eddowes' possession. These items were found in her partially torn pocket. This would mean that the killer ransacked Eddowes' pocket, examined the goods, and then returned them instead of leaving them with the rest of her gear which was left next to the body.

The other murders the diarist refers to are completely unverifiable.

The diarist engages in "rhyming verse" to outdo his brother Michael, only problem there is that Michael Maybrick only composed music, he wasn't a lyricist. Surely something that the real James Maybrick would've been aware of? Don't tell me, another brainfart on his part?

Tell me, what insight into the murders does the diarist give us that he couldn't have gleaned from contemporaneous or modern sources?

Darn it - Caz beat me to the punchline on the long-solved Michael-as-musician 'glaring error'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me address your others. If you had done any reading, you would have already known the answers to your own questions, but here goes anyway (I'll do the thinking for you):

He was perpetuating the myth that coins were left besides Annie Chapman's body, a myth that was finally debunked by Philip Sugden's book.

How I cried at this joyful lack of research. In Sugden's very same work, he refers to a body found some years later in which coins had been found in the women's pocket and that this had mirrorred the Chapman case. James Maybrick (Jack the Ripper) correctly failed to state that he left the coins at Chapman's feet. It was simply the eager 'glaring error fishermen' like you who would draw this unworthy conclusion to suit your dismissal of his candidature.

Right, what's next?

The diarist lists several items in Eddowes' possession. These items were found in her partially torn pocket. This would mean that the killer ransacked Eddowes' pocket, examined the goods, and then returned them instead of leaving them with the rest of her gear which was left next to the body.

The obvious first response to this is that we have another example of Argument from Personal Incredulity here. One man's disbelief should not form the views of others. Only the known facts. Or else the possible facts, as in this case. You are assuming that the match box was Eddowes'. What if it was Maybrick's? What if he used his own box of matches to light the scenes, and on this occasion the box was empty? It was murder No. 2 that night, after all, and both were committed in the relative dark. Why would the match box be more Eddowes' than Maybrick's? Maybrick himself tells us that the red leather cigarette case found at the murder scene was actually his not Eddowes' so there's a theme going on there which seems to me to be perfectly possible.

The other murders the diarist refers to are completely unverifiable.

So why mention them in your post? As 'glaring errors' go, you have a very low threshold for the defining of them, in my opinion ...

The diarist engages in "rhyming verse" to outdo his brother Michael, only problem there is that Michael Maybrick only composed music, he wasn't a lyricist. Surely something that the real James Maybrick would've been aware of? Don't tell me, another brainfart on his part?

All long-since removed from the increasingly-shortening list of 'glaring errors' in the journal. This 'glaring error' - granted - was a 'glaring error' longer than most, but the good news is that Maybrick (who wrote the journal) in 1888 naturally knew more than those people researching the journal in 1992. Phew - what a relief for us all, eh?

Tell me, what insight into the murders does the diarist give us that he couldn't have gleaned from contemporaneous or modern sources?

I don't buy this 'glaring error' theory that Maybrick should have planted something in his journal that would be beyond the means of a hoaxer one wet weekend. Nevertheless, there are some details in the journal which tally with Maybrick's life without being necessarily easily accessible to a hoaxer. I suggest you try reading one of the Harrison books or Feldman's because I don't have a photographic memory, but what springs to mind includes:

• The reference to Gladys being ill again
  The knowledge that Maybrick's source of arsenic expanded unexpectedly due to his business dealings with someone who had a ready supply
  Maybrick's reference to his brother Edwin being away in America until not long before Maybrick himself died
  I love the reference to the 1889 Grand National being the fastest he had seen, though I accept that this could have been found in a book
  I really love the reference to his parents' grave (singular) - that was genius
  He claims 'Eddowes'' red leather cigarette case as his own. If we could find it and test it for arsenic, that would more or less end the debate.

Anyway, it's been a really long day and that's the best I've got for now.

Was that the best you'd got, by the way, or were you keeping your powder dry?

Cheers,

Ike