One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

... out of curiosity, has the sales contract between MB and Robert Smith ever been made public?

Can I ask two questions to which I would love answers:

1) What is the actual definition of a DAiry Defender? (And I'm not referring to the likes of erobitha or me here)

2) What underlies a question like that quoted above? What is the implication? (It seems to come up regularly without ever being clear what specifically is being implied.)

Ike

[caz]

I'm not sure if you agree with me or not, Caroline.

Sort of, Scotty. The diary does read like a farce, or spoof, or parody to me, so I'm biased and assume that's the way its author wrote it and meant it to be read.

I think I'd know the author if I'd met him in his lifetime and knew his 'voice'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Can I ask two questions to which I would love answers:

1) What is the actual definition of a DAiry Defender? (And I'm not referring to the likes of erobitha or me here)

2) What underlies a question like that quoted above? What is the implication? (It seems to come up regularly without ever being clear what specifically is being implied.)

Ike

Can I take a stab, Ike?

1) Anyone who doesn't immediately roll over and swallow Bongo's horsefeathers.

2) I don't know, but what IS that smell of rotting fish?

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'll see your stab.....

Can I take a stab, Ike?

1) Anyone who doesn't immediately roll over and swallow Bongo's horsefeathers.

Anyone who uses the term DAiry

2) I don't know, but what IS that smell of rotting fish?

The kippers that were done up in 1992!

Love,

Caz
X

Whay Hey.
Who's move is it now?

[Kattrup]

Can I ask two questions to which I would love answers:

1) What is the actual definition of a DAiry Defender? (And I'm not referring to the likes of erobitha or me here)

2) What underlies a question like that quoted above? What is the implication? (It seems to come up regularly without ever being clear what specifically is being implied.)

Ike

1. To me it’s people who choose to disregard evidence that the diary originated with MB and possibly others in favor of invalid arguments trying to show some other origin. I personally include those who believe the watch to not be a modern hoax/fraud in the term.

2. I’m not aware there’s anything implied, I’m merely curious what it says; how did MB describe his involvement in the diary and what rights did he sell?

Presumably he could not sign away his wife’s rights, so one might consider advising Anne Graham that publishing her work without her consent is a breach of copyright and she’d be entitled to redress (money!) if she was, in fact, involved, for instance by handwriting the original copy (her handwriting, if it is hers, having been reproduced in the facsimile edition).

Same with royalties, while MB might have signed a contract guaranteeing him a share of profits, is that formulated in terms of royalties, indicating that Robert Smith acknowledged that MB wrote the diary? I suppose MB’s daughter would be heir to his rights, is she being compensated for the sale of her father’s creation? I suppose if one were in contact with her, one could consider asking her.
I’m merely curious since it seems to me that these matters have a bearing on what key people (MB, Anne Graham, Robert Smith) consider the diary to be - a historical document or a literary creation?

And I do not know if anything is publicly known about the deal, which is, surprise, why I’m asking if it has been made public before?

[caz]

I don't know what you're on, Kattrup, but whatever it is I don't want any.

You start with the presumption that everyone knew the DAiry was a Barrett production from 1992 [and the watch a Johnson production from 1993] and have been 'managing' the double hoax as such ever since. You're a lost cause. I already advised you to write to Robert Smith if your curiosity is genuine. You can find his contact details on the internet.

But wait, let's see if I can help you after all. Bongo's Uncle Jimmy has just arrived with my second cuppa and he's holding up a yellowing scrap of paper for my scrutiny.

Well blow me down, if it isn't the sales contract drawn up in 1993 between the Barretts and the publisher:

'I, the publisher, agree to buy the fake DAiry from Mr and Mrs Barrett for the sum of £1, providing they keep it zipped about writing it themselves until at least six months after publication of my bestseller, or until we have all earned enough to keep Bongo Barrett in Scotch for a whole month and for me to bag myself a small chateau in the Champagne region of La Belle France, whichever is the later. Shirley can whistle.'

Bongo has scribbled beneath the fading signatures:

'Ha ha the fool Beleevs he Got A GRAte DeAl, it thrills Me a GRAte DeAl to see tHe sMuG look on His fAce. Mrs BonGo AnD I will Be fReeking out - cuRse My BAD sPeelinG - fRequentinG [tHAnk you Anne] tHe SADDle toniGht to sellyBRAte. If onlY tHe fools new wHAt we HAD in stor for tHeM ha ha ha...'

Any other questions, anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I don't know what you're on, Kattrup, but whatever it is I don't want any.

He's been smelling the Katnip, Caz, and it's been driving him slowly more crazy by the day. We'll be getting him a bed next to Observer before you know it.

I - for one - will sellyBRAte when we do ...

[caz]

I just don't get it, Ikeykins. Kattkins said a few weeks ago that he had very little interest in the subject and no desire to increase his knowledge.

And now, all of a sudden he's doing a passably good impression of someone who is Kurious as all hell to "read all about it".

And we all know what Kuriosity did to the Katt.

My Dad used to say: What side of the door does a cat want to be?

Clue: It's the other side.

Love,

Cazzikins
X

[Iconoclast]

Saturday 25th June 1994
Liverpool Daily Post story appears, written by Harold Brough
Mike claims he wrote the diary
(Still some seven moths before he is persuaded by Alan Gray on behalf of Melvin Harris to sign an affidavit to this effect)

Less than one month later ...

Michael Barrett,
Interviewed by Roger Wilkes
Goldie Street, Liverpool,
Thursday, 21st July 1994

From Google [25/07/2020]: ROGER WILKES is a journalist. Born in North Wales in 1948, he was educated in Shropshire and joined the BBC in 1972. He has worked in print, television and radio in Liverpool, London, Bristol and Manchester.

MB: Well, first of all, I can’t revise an opinion. I can’t revise an opinion because I know Tony didn’t do it. Where the bloody hell he did get it from, I don’t know. I can’t revise my opinion. I can’t revise my opinion. I refuse to revise my opinion – actually, I refuse, totally refuse to revise my opinion. No.

RW: In a way, it would be better for you in a way if it could actually be proved to be a fake. Then at least we’ll all know what the position is and we can move on – “It was a fake, we’ve proved it’s a fake”, do you know what I mean?

MB: Yeah, Tony – no, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I can’t prove it. I just know in my own heart of hearts. I’m not looking at you – yeah, I will look at you. Oh no, I will look at you; I know in my own heart of hearts Tony never wrote it. I didn’t write it and if Tony didn’t write it, who the bloody hell did? It’s a bloody good question. I’d love to give you the answer. I’d love to give you the answer lad and I would love to give you the answer, but I can’t.

So - sandwiched in between the June 25, 1994 Liverpool Daily Post claim that he wrote the diary and the January 5, 1995 affidavit that he wrote the diary, he gives an interview in which he claims he did not write the diary. I implore everyone to bear that in mind every time we read that Mike Barrett 'confessed' to writing the diary. You can't 'confess' to something if you can't also prove it. The absence of proof leaves you with a 'claim' rather than a 'confession'.

It would appear that at 2pm on Saturday, August 1, 2020 the Maybrick diary is finally going to be proven to be a fake, and - honestly - that is fine with me. It will lighten my own life's load tremendously to finally know one way or the other. I hope the Big Reveal also puts paid to the watch because I don't want to then have to labour over the argument that the watch was authentic and that it inspired the diary which wasn't.

If it's a fake (and the watch is a fake) then we can all move on. Personally, if it's a fake, I don't really care who wrote it so I'll be gone from these shores for good. "Good riddance" I hear most of you shouting.

But there is one thing no-one will ever prove because it simply didn't happen: Mike Barrett did not create the text in the Victorian scrapbook and therefore his wife Anne did not transcribe it into the scrapbook, neither in late March to early April 1992 nor any time before it.

It must have been someone else.

Cheers,

Ike
Looking forward to the end of the mystery

[caz]

Morning Ike,

That's an awfully specific date and time for actually proving the diary to be a Barrett fake, isn't it?

I would imagine the proof is already in the jolly old bag, but the time and date has been carefully selected so Ike will be awed into reverential silence until the FA Cup Final kicks off at 5.30, and then Caz will be stunned into horrified silence if Arsenal pulls it off.

And then it will be all over and they can take the pins out their Play Doh DAiry Defender Dolls and put their toys away.

I wonder how they got Anne Graham to write something in front of witnesses that matches the diary author's handwriting? Thumb screws would have been somewhat counterproductive I imagine. Probably poked her with the soft cushions and when that only made her giggle nervously they sat her in the comfy chair with only a cup of coffee at eleven. Ghastly. No wonder she played ball.

Exciting times, eh?

Blessed are the Bongo Believers. I'm glad they're finally getting somewhere, 'cause they've had a hell of a time of late.

Love,

The Jolly Old Bag
X

[John Wheat]

Sort of, Scotty. The diary does read like a farce, or spoof, or parody to me, so I'm biased and assume that's the way its author wrote it and meant it to be read.

I think I'd know the author if I'd met him in his lifetime and knew his 'voice'.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Just who do you believe wrote the diary? And when do you believe the diary was written? I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers John

[caz]

Hi Caz

Just who do you believe wrote the diary? And when do you believe the diary was written? I'm genuinely interested.

Cheers John

I sincerely wish I knew what to believe, John.

When you look at the inconclusive scientific reports, the nearest to giving an actual date of creation was, IIRC, the Rendell team in the US, who were expecting it to be a modern fake, but could only pin it down to 'prior to 1970', which helps nobody.

The language and information in the diary itself don't bother me, so as far as I know it could have been written at any time between 1889 and 1992, by someone with a reasonably good grasp and prior interest in both the Ripper and Maybrick cases, and very possibly with inside knowledge through association [friends, family or descendants] with one or more of the people directly involved.

The Barretts I rule out completely, based on everything I have come to know about them since I first read about the diary in 1998.

I won't be budged on that one, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that happens to be mine.

But by tomorrow afternoon I may well be proved entirely wrong. If there is proof that a Barrett held the pen, my flabber will be gasted but it won't affect my interest in both the Ripper and the next bestseller: "How We Faked The Maybrick DAiry", by A.E. Graham.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

But by tomorrow afternoon I may well be proved entirely wrong. If there is proof that a Barrett held the pen, my flabber will be gasted but it won't affect my interest in both the Ripper and the next bestseller: "How We Faked The Maybrick DAiry", by A.E. Graham.

Hi Caz,

Don't worry, that will not be happening. Lord Orsam has not found evidence that a Barrett stopped building houses long enough to build a forgery. You can take that one to the bookies. Could you drop my heart off at the council tip on your way, please (and perhaps Trevor or Stewart Evans could get one of their old mates to charge the Premier League with murder for me?).

Obviously, I believe that it was James Maybrick, but - in the unlikely event that he did not - we have two logical options:

• Someone in the LVP who knew fairly intimate details of the Maybrick household in 1888-89 and also knew details about the murders which were not then public domain. This must be a very small data set and I am inclined to think it is unlikely for this very reason. There just aren't enough likely candidates to start assigning any sort of confidence to the notion (that's not to say it didn't happen this way, of course).
• Far more plausible is a post-1987 creation, but that is problematic because there is really only Mike and Anne Barratt and/or Tony D in the frame for it and none of those have any credentials or back story as forgers. If it wasn't one or more of those three, I'm beat. I can't believe someone went to a fair amount of effort to obtain the document then create the text only to then allow someone else to benefit from the crime. Obviously, Mike Barratt claimed he created the scrapbook but we all know how deeply flawed his claims were - how they changed constantly, sometimes in the course of the same sentence, but never once, in any way (with the highly inflammatory request for a blank diary notwithstanding) supported by any evidence whatsoever. So - to iterate the point - here is a guy who is centre stage as potential forger and who claims his crown as forger but cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support his outrageous claims. The balanced observer (and there aren't many of those - tee hee) looks askance and questions why that could possibly be.

Obviously, I believe that it was James Maybrick, so I get to lie back and relax in this unexpected heatwave happy in the knowledge that I don't actually have to answer the original question.

Cheers,

Ike

[John Wheat]

I sincerely wish I knew what to believe, John.

When you look at the inconclusive scientific reports, the nearest to giving an actual date of creation was, IIRC, the Rendell team in the US, who were expecting it to be a modern fake, but could only pin it down to 'prior to 1970', which helps nobody.

The language and information in the diary itself don't bother me, so as far as I know it could have been written at any time between 1889 and 1992, by someone with a reasonably good grasp and prior interest in both the Ripper and Maybrick cases, and very possibly with inside knowledge through association [friends, family or descendants] with one or more of the people directly involved.

The Barretts I rule out completely, based on everything I have come to know about them since I first read about the diary in 1998.

I won't be budged on that one, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that happens to be mine.

But by tomorrow afternoon I may well be proved entirely wrong. If there is proof that a Barrett held the pen, my flabber will be gasted but it won't affect my interest in both the Ripper and the next bestseller: "How We Faked The Maybrick DAiry", by A.E. Graham.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for that Caz.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

We are now exactly four hours away from the end of the Maybrick scrapbook. Whilst awaiting Lord Orsam's Big Reveal, and the first ever LOBSTER Day, I would like to ask Simon Wood a quick question. Melvin Harris stated:

THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH. Melvin Harris In Underwood there is a photograph of Kelly's corpse in that room yet the fakers see no handprint in sight. But there are dark smudges and lines on the wall and if you are looking for an 'M' you can create one out of the markings. Other people see different things. In fact, three years earlier Simon Wood had spotted initials on the wall; but not the Maybrick ones.

I've been meaning to ask this for yonks. The initials that you reported seeing in 1988: which ones were they?

Cheers,

Ike