One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Paul Feldman knew the truth, but lied to his own researchers and to his readers? He simply passed on Anne's story because he thought it sounded 'convincing' even though he knew it was bogus?

If I had suggested that--and who know, maybe I did suggest it somewhere in the past--Caz Morris and/or Keith Skinner would have thrown a fit.

But I suspect you'll get a pass, Ike!

I think I'll get a pass from every level-headed member of our dear readers. I didn't say that that was what Feldman had done, merely that I cannot know for certain what he knew, what Anne knew, nor where the scrapbook came from. The only certainty I have is that neither Anne nor Mike Barrett had any hand whatsoever in its creation which - in my world - means that I am missing a viable hoaxer as one of my possibilities.

My questions to Anne of post whatever-it-was [#9390, I now note] illustrate rather wonderfully how little it is likely that they were involved in its creation.

And that's before we start on Mike's dropping of a kidney on the fly leaf thereby leaving a kidney-shaped mark.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

I also can't help noticing that the JFK assassination thread has received nearly 2,000 posts in 2 months, which means it is on pace to surpass the 'Greatest Thread of All' before the end of autumn. It took you 14 1/2 years to reach #9403, and I, for one, will feel great regret if you are forced to come up with a new slogan. For your sake, I hope that interest in the grassy knoll wanes, so you remain at the top of your perch. Cheers.

Well thank you for your kind sentiments, but the murder of some bloke in Dallas is never going to have legs. When did it happen, anyway? Last week's news, mate. There will only ever be one 'Greatest Thread of All' and it will be the one featuring the sassy know-it-all.

And I don't mean you, RJ.

[Scott Nelson]

Surely you don't mean you, Ike?

Only 593 more pages to go.

I'd like to read more about the various provenance ideas people might have. As it works for me, the "Devereux Committee" is probably the best bet for a rewrite since the first mention of provenance by a keeper (Barrett) is typically closest to the truth.

[rjpalmer]

Anyway, dear readers, please do share with us all the questions you would want to ask of Anne Graham during this mooted one-off interview after she confesses to her and Mike's terribly inept and shabby hoax.

Hello, Ike.

1. Just so you know, I received a private message from 'Lord Orsam' stating that he will respond to each of your questions, but I suppose you'll have to wait until his next article appears. Watch for it. I am a little confused, though. I thought these questions were for Anne Graham, so why is Jay Hartley expecting a diary critic to answer them? Your post wasn't just a cheap gimmick, was it?

2. If Keith wants to know the truth about the Maybrick Hoax--no matter how the chips might fall--why doesn't he just call Anne Graham on the telephone and ask her? It might be an embarrassing guestion, and none of my business, but it's a fair one, isn't it? They were close once, and after twenty years perhaps she would tell him? He's stated publicly that he believes the diary came from Dodd's house--the obvious implication being that Anne's story, which he had previously championed, is a lie. Anne should have a chance to make a rebuttal to this very public accusation by not only him, but by Robert Smith, and Caz Brown. Not being a hypocrite, she should also have a chance to rebut my beliefs and the beliefs of many others that the diary was written in Goldie Street in 1992. I just figure that there is a far better chance for her not hanging up on Keith (whom she knows) than in her not hanging up on me (whom she doesn't know from Soothsayer Mitchell).

Why not make the call and end this here and now? The clock is ticking, Putin is insane, fascism is on the rise, and the earth is heating up. Let's get on with it. Make that phone call, end it, and we can call it a day. I saw this spray painted on a wall: "Knowledge, without action, is futile."

Of course, on the same afternoon, I saw another spray-painted slogan along the lines of "s-d off."

Which will it be?

RP

[Mike J. G.]

Well, in truth, the questions are simply those which I would personally put to Anne if she ever backed-up the belief of Lord Orsam & The Acolytes and came out and confessed to having been involved in the production of the Victorian scrapbook. I personally believe that those questions demonstrate conclusively that she was not involved on any level and they are therefore designed to illustrate that belief - for, if you can illustrate it in theory, you can argue that you have actually illustrated it in practice (i.e., whether Anne were to confess or not).





One of the greatest Myths of Maybrickology, Mike. There was only one 'story of provenance': that was the bit from Mike ("I got the diary from Tony Devereux") and then the extended version from Anne ("...after I gave it to Tony Devereux to give to Mike"). So that is backed-up partly by Mike then fully by Anne and then fully by her father, Billy. Now, I don't believe that provenance for a moment but it was - for the record - the only provenance ever offered for authenticity by Mike Barrett. Obviously, Mike then said he fabricated the scrapbook but that's not really a provenance, is it? It's not a provenance because it doesn't lead to authenticity - it leads to inauthenticity.

The far more likely alternative 'provenance' is not really a provenance at all because Mike never once suggested it happened. That, of course, is the Battlecrease House 'provenance' but that's only ever been argued by those who are not Mike Barrett (for example, me) so we can't add that to your mooted 'varying stories of provenance' because the guy who brought it to the public's attention did not make that claim. You can't say that Mike's proferred provenance is weakened because people who were not Mike suggested a different possible provenance.

Mike, as we know, said a lot of things, and we know that the story later evolved to having come out of Riversdale, which is the origin I think you go along with, correct? Anne certainly later claimed otherwise, despite having seemingly gone along with Mike's original story without too much hassle early on. Strange. Mike obviously said it came from Tony, yet Tony's family knew nothing of it. Anne went along with that despite later claiming it'd been in her family for decades... Which begs the question: why?

Why do you ask this question? Anne Graham never once - to my knowledge - said otherwise?

Anne never uttered a word about Mike's claim that it came from Tony, Ike, despite the supposed fact that it'd been in her family for decades... Was she washing her hair when Mike came out with the Devereux yarn?

Dear God, man, are you struggling to keep up here or what?

No, I'm proposing the hypothetical question to Anne about how the diary got into Mike's hands from Riversdale... Seeing as we have 3 random stories to choose from:

a) Fast Eddie's Five-Finger Discount from Riversdale and into the Saddle, with a random-ass Uni' visit in between.

b) Tony Devereux's Debatable Gift

c) Anne Graham's Great Granny's Heirloom

I'm guessing Anne's going with option C these days.

Mike never spoke of the mooted visit to the university - that was the rumour put about by the electricians not by Mike. It may or may not have happened on March 9. It may or may not have happened on March 10. It doesn't matter, though, because Mike never said it happened.

Nope, he didn't, but if he'd genuinely been given it in the local boozer then that story would've definitely cropped up. Eddie, or "random-ass electrician" would've told him it'd been taken into the Uni', as they'd have obviously chatted about it like two seemingly normal fellas in a pub would do.

"Yeah, I took it into the Uni in town and some arl fella looked at it, mate."

"Did he, yeah?"

"Yeah, mate."

"Sound."

That has never been established though the university has stated that a visit took place. Unfortunately, the details are hopelessly sketchy so there is no reason to start arguing that particular visit had anything to do with the Battlecrease electricians.

I'm of the mind that it was never taken into the university at all, which begs the question: why claim that it had? But, as I said, Mike would've been told such a story if the Saddle pub origin is to be believed, which I feel is as unlikely as the supposed university inspection.

Unfortunately, Ike... The university issue is a part of the timeline, whether you choose to accept it or not, it was claimed as having happened. Likewise, if Mike had gotten the book at the Saddle from Eddie, do you not think the who/what/why/where and when would've been spoken about? Surely an "I've just took it to the uni to have it looked at" would've likely cropped up over a pint? If Eddie gave Mike the book, then they surely spoke about where it had come from and where it had been since. These are all a part of the story, no matter whether it fits with your preferred narrative or it doesn't, it was brought up as having occurred, which begs the question: why? This saga is full of people saying things that don't add up.

Mike only ever said he got it from Tony Devereux at some point in 1991 so - no - he did not ever to my knowledge discuss this story which he appears to have known nothing about.

But in your opinion, the diary came out of Riversdale, right? So you're of the opinion that it was handed to Mike later that same day at the Saddle by Eddie, or someone else?

Mike said he got it from Tony, but Tony had passed on and the only people left to potentially corroborate that story, Tony's immediate family, had no knowledge of any diary. If you believe that the diary came out of Riversdale, then you've got to accept the stories that go along with that provenance. If it didn't go to any university, why say that it did? Also, if you've got a potentially interesting piece of history on your hands, why go to the trouble of half-inching it only to then basically give it away in your local pub?

I think you've just partly rephrased one of my questions to Anne, there, Mike. Make your own up, eh?

Well the question obviously goes both ways, doesn't it? If they didn't write it, why say that they did when they knew that it would likely be investigated? Again, it's a pretty obvious question to ponder, as is the one you proposed. Many of these questions go both ways, pretending that they don't isn't exactly what I'd call being impartial, Ike.

Well, in this alternative reality where Anne Graham does confess to having hoaxed the scrapbook, it's really Lord Orsam's Everything, Everywhere, All at Once moment as it's a hypothetical situation designed to illustrate the profoundly unlikely probability that Anne Graham did have any such involvement. In this scenario, your choice of words ("why then claim to have hoaxed it") is utterly irrelevant because we are behaving here as though she made the claim and meant it because it was true.

Strange how Anne didn't make much of a fuss when Mike claimed that they'd both created it, then.

None whatsoever. This ought to answer your second question too.

I agree, but again, we're merely asking questions of Anne, and I'd love to know Anne's response to said question as opposed to yours.

Well not according to Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and other such deluded, desperate commentators. According to them, Anne Graham was at the very heart of a hoax so - if they are right - why should she not one day come out and confess and give that one final interview?

Well we know James Maybrick didn't write it. I suspect she's no longer arsed about the entire saga and wants to lay low and live her life away from people like us, Ike, truth be told, mate.

You're back playing The Myth Game. There were no 'contradictory' stories therefore no muddying of 'the already murky waters' (though Muddy the Mud Boy tries hard to achieve this on a regular basis). See above if your short-term memory is ****.

No, you're right, there was only one story about where the diary came from... Oh, wait, there were actually several.

It's only 'odd' if the scrapbook ever went to John Moore's or any other university and if you are the sort of person who thinks taking such a document to a place of learning is 'odd'. We don't know if it did so you don't need to build it into your deconstruction with such convenient certainty.

I'm just curious how it all came about, especially pre-mobile phone days. Did they pop into the phone-box on Aigburth road and ring the University hotline and ask for Professor Von Helsing? The story doesn't make on iota of sense and you know that it doesn't. But, why mention it at all?

Enough with the university, already! We don't know if the scrapbook ever went to a university but we do know with absolute certainty that it had nothing to do with Mike Barrett.I'm sensing that you are ever so slightly hung-up on the unevidenced university story. Try your theory again but skip the unevidenced university bit and see if it fits a bit better in your head this time.

Like I said up yonder, you have to face the fact that this is a part of the timeline, Ike. You cannot avoid that absolute fact.

The degree of implausibility of a candidate rather obviously begs the question, "Why choose him?". Not all candidates are equal, and James Maybrick as a candidate for Jack the Ripper was way down the ranking (not equal first as you might have us believe).

My point obviously was: why choose anyone? As in, if they weren't named suspects by the actual people leading the investigation, then why choose anyone? That's the beauty of Ripperology, pick any old random bloke and start making the pieces fit. Maybrick is as good a random pick as any, considering there's absolutely no proof that he was actually the Ripper, and a ****-load of what-if's plastered on his resume to try and make him fit.

Because - other than Simon Wood - most Ripperologists have actually suggested a candidate on the grounds that Jack the Ripper actually existed.

He sure did, and everyone and their sister's dog have a suspect, and most of them aren't remotely logical, so Maybrick is in good company. Bury is infinitely more likely as the Ripper, and it's sincerely silly to pretend otherwise, yet here we are.

That's actually the beauty of everything, everywhere, all at once. For every mystery, you are welcome to claim all manner of bizarre explanations. For Jack, we can name anyone we want (as long as they were of killing age in 1888). That doesn't make every candidate equally plausible or equally implausible. there's a spectrum based upon plausibility and Maybrick was way down that list, and yet - as my questions to our hypothetical Anne show - he somehow managed to fit right in there time and time and time and time again (pardon the pun, if you got it).

Yeah, along with one hundred other blokes and birds who also fitted right in, hence this forum's existence and the large quantity of silly suspect threads.

Which really worries me because you are presumably happy with the idea that someone, somewhere, thought to make of James Maybrick a Jack the Ripper and you don't find it even mildly surprising that his name starts with 'Ja' and ends with 'ck'. Why did Jack give himself the name 'Jack'? Well, we don't know, do we? So any candidate who potentially;lly offers us a reason for his choice of nom de plume helps us to estimate his plausibility as the murderer.

Because it's merely coincidence unless you propose the idea that he wrote Dear Boss, which he plainly didn't.

I don't think you should be too quick to assume that people can't write in multiple hands. This one has been illustrated many times before with Peter Kürten usually cited as evidence for a mass murderer doing exactly that.

There's simply no good evidence that he wrote any of these letters, or the diary, Ike. Amazingly, this chap who was supposedly off his head on arsenic and murder, was also apparently capable of writing words in entirely different ways, from subtle letter formations to minute pressure changes, without ever knowing that his writing would be scrutinized by experts over a hundred years after he'd died. Some bloke, phrase creator, time traveller, phantom... Truly a one-off in the history of man. He had no intention of anyone reading the diary, yet he decided to write it COMPLETELY differently to Dear Boss, and to his own writing that we actually have on record. And when I say COMPLETELY differently, I mean, he literally formed letters in totally different ways, using very different shapes, applying totally different types of pressure to his lines and crosses, from different angles and directions.

Basically, what reason would Maybrick have had for changing his writing from Dear Boss to the diary, which we're constantly being reminded by your good self, that he didn't write for our benefit but for himself?

It's absolutely clear that Maybrick did not write the diary or the Dear Boss letter, Ike.

If Jack the Ripper was James Maybrick then James Maybrick 100% came up with the moniker 'Jack the Ripper'. I hope you see that? You move 100% certainty to 0% certainty because you assume that Maybrick was not Jack. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy, pally.

Yeah, if you've gone out on a limb and hedged every bet you've ever had on Maybrick being the Ripper, and having written a tell-all diary of his deeds, then 100% you're gonna have to go with the incredibly silly theory that he had a knack for writing like two, three, four? completely different human beings, while he's inventing phrases and drinking in pubs before they existed.

Quite the opposite. By asking the hypothetical Anne the questions I did, I show rather clearly the utterly implausible case anyone puts forward when they suggest Anne Graham had anything to do with the creation of the Victorian scrapbook. You're just left speculating because your brain ain't caught up yet.

All of my questions, hypothetical or otherwise, are very relevant. If I had to choose between Jim and Anne, I know where my money would be going, Ike. Talk about your brain trying to catch up!

I put it to you that you cannot possibly know everything you need to know to make that claim.

On the contrary, I know enough to know that James Maybrick neither wrote the diary, nor any of the supposed Ripper letters, whereas you appear to believe that he did exactly those such things despite the glaringly obvious fact that none of said handwriting remotely matches the examples that we have of Maybrick, which rather obviously doesn't seem to ring any alarm bells for you because of your faith. I use the word "faith" for a reason. Knowing what we know about handwriting analysis, the personal traits and characteristics that we all without doubt use even without knowing, we can say with confidence that Jim didn't write any of it... Hence why most levelheaded observers tossed the diary by the wayside a long time ago.

Well there's his ******* confession in his scrapbook, for Christ's sake. I'm sure you're not keeping-up here.

The one nobody save a few fanatics believe he ever wrote, largely owing to the fact that it's in another person's handwriting and not Jim's.

And yet - it is worth noting - that one of 'us weirdos' is almost certainly correct so perhaps people should pay more attention to us?

The only genuine certainty in this saga, Ike, is that the entire saga is based on absolute skullduggery and shenanigans, which doesn't bode well for Jim having been the Ripper.

Ciao.

Aigburth's least heard-of son,

Ike

Now, now, don't be too salty, Ike, unlike your good Sir Jim, I'm actually published and nobody else wrote my work on my behalf! And according to something Caz said a while back, James Maybrick is probably Aigburth's least heard of son, way behind even Dave Lister. Hence the oft-peddled line of "why would anyone create a hoax about him, he's an unknown?" Yet here we are...

Take care, Ike, and keep reaching for that rainbow.

[FISHY1118]

9410 post later..... seems a waste .

The James Maybrick diary was fake after the 3rd post ,everyone new that .

[rjpalmer]

I get the impression that Tom Mitchell has long salt-and-pepper hair, a hooked nose, is at least 6' 6" tall, wears long black coats, drives a vintage Jaguar, strides into parties like he owns the house, has a booming voice, has friends in high places, reads The New Statesman, goes to international rugby matches, holidays in Antigua, drinks vintage claret, points his finger as he talks to you, and...is utterly wrong.

Interesting. I always thought Tom was a mousy, somewhat hen-pecked Walter Middy type, who drives a rusted-out Morris Minor that he keeps in a mossy, dilapidated garage. I’ll hazard—not a smoker. Beans on toast, likes a bit of gristle and the burnt scrapings off a frying pan. Owns at least two cats. He once raised chickens. He gets wet eyed when they sing “You’ll Never Walk Alone,” even though he is no Liverpool fan. When he is not posting here, he is on another forum where he champions the theory that Sir Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare…and is utterly wrong.

[Iconoclast]

9410 post later..... seems a waste .
The James Maybrick diary was fake after the 3rd post ,everyone new that .

Well, Fishy, if it was a fake and "everyone knew that", I put it to you that we are missing a hoaxer as it clearly wasn't Mike and Anne Barrett, and despite some desperate posturing and theorising everyone knew that.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to Lord Orsam's attempts to answer the questions I would put to Anne Graham should she finally confess to being part of a hoax back in 1992 (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...356#post807356).

What everyone definitely knows about that is that B&Q are about to have one hell of a run on drainpipes ...

Ike

[John Wheat]

Well, Fishy, if it was a fake and "everyone knew that", I put it to you that we are missing a hoaxer as it clearly wasn't Mike and Anne Barrett, and despite some desperate posturing and theorising everyone knew that.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to Lord Orsam's attempts to answer the questions I would put to Anne Graham should she finally confess to being part of a hoax back in 1992 (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...356#post807356).

What everyone definitely knows about that is that B&Q are about to have one hell of a run on drainpipes ...

Ike

I'm with Fishy. Why don't you do yourself a favour and do something more constructive Ike? The Diary was not written by James Maybrick.

[FISHY1118]

I'm with Fishy. Why don't you do yourself a favour and do something more constructive Ike? The Diary was not written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

I'm with Fishy. Why don't you do yourself a favour and do something more constructive Ike? The Diary was not written by James Maybrick.

What could possibly be more constructive than showing that the baying mob of Ripper delinquents were utterly wrong all this time?

[John Wheat]

What could possibly be more constructive than showing that the baying mob of Ripper delinquents were utterly wrong all this time?

But they are not wrong.

[Iconoclast]

But they are not wrong.

But they are wrong.

[John Wheat]

But they are wrong.

They are not but feel free to believe what you like. It's a free country.

[Mike J. G.]

https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/forensic-investigation/handwriting-analysis/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/handwriting-analysis.htm

Two interesting articles on the topic of handwriting analysis.

As I've said before, James Maybrick had no reason to disguise his hand. You don't start forming letters the opposite way to how you've been doing it for countless years simply because you're inebriated, or "off your noggin." And would you intentionally disguise your writing if you weren't banking on anyone actually reading what you'd written?

Supposing that Sir Jim penned the Dear Boss letter, (and/or Saucy Jack, seeing as, if I'm not mistaken, they're supposed to be close matches?) then why did he write it in a totally different fashion to how he was apparently penning his diary on the regular? Not simply in a smaller scale, or a bit more untidy, or a bit scribbly... But literally different in the sort of ways that are described in the above articles?

I mean, the obvious answer is that the person who wrote the diary did not write those letters. You're stretching logic if you disagree, bending over backwards to perform the sort of mental gymnastics you need to keep believing.

If the diarist didn't write the letter, then they didn't likely coin the moniker of Jack the Ripper, making all references to Jim, James and Jack largely irrelevant, coincidental and pretty damaging to the notion that Jim was Jack the Ripper.

If Jim wasn't Jack, then the diary is pretty much a work of fiction using cherry-picked information and imagination. Given that the diary's writing doesn't match what we have of James Maybrick's, I'd say the chances of him having written the diary are slim and none, and slim just left the building.

But someone wrote it... So which story are you behind?

To be an older hoax, it either came from Devereux, whose family had never heard of it...

It either came from Anne's family, yet she opted to forget about that fact until later down the line, for some reason.

Or it was found under the floorboards on Riversdale road and was pinched and taken to the university? Pub? And handed over for nowt to a scrap metal dealer who used to write articles in magazines who subsequently went straight to a publisher to make some bread.

Or... One of those bunch of characters wrote it, or knew who had.

Which one, however improbable, is more likely?

Had Tony kept it locked away from his loved ones, for absolutely no reason whatsoever? Deciding that during his final days he'd unleash the secret to one Michael Barrett, of scrap metal dealing fame?

Had Anne Graham simply forgot that the book had been in her family home for a billion years, suddenly finding it in the hands of her husband, before suddenly remembering after a strange series of lies about where it had come from, that it was her family heirloom?

Or, boys and girls, was it plucked from beneath the floor of Jimmy's home, whisked around town and planted, basically for nowt, in Mike Barrett's hands?


All roads keep leading back to that pesky Mike bloke, the one what wrote magazine articles and crosswords. Funny little games, indeed.

There was once a chap
Called Michael Barrett

On a darkened night
With a glass of claret

He put pen to paper
Like a knife to skin

And wrote a tall tale
About a bloke called Jim