Inspiration for the Fake 'Diary'

[Graham]

Martin Fido said that Anne could have written the Diary 'with one hand tied behind her back', but that didn't imply that she actually did. I'm not sure that Feldman fed her very much that was actually germane, as he did tend to go off in unproductive directions in his own research, for example he spent a lot of time and money investigating branches of the Maybrick clan based in and around Peterborough. However, that Anne was capable of proper, productive research is illustrated by her part-authorship (along with Shirley Harrison) of the book 'The Final Victim', about Florie Maybrick.

Billy Graham was Anne's father, and in all honesty and seriousness I do not believe that he would have been capable of anything even approaching an input to the manufacture of a fake Diary.

What is equally plain and obvious (at least to me) is that Mike Barrett didn't write it, either.

Graham

[Steven Russell]

Sir Robert:
With regard to Anne - why not? As Chris George has pointed out, the Maybrick case was probably featured quite heavily in the Liverpool media in 1989. And as Graham points out, Anne is no dummy. As far as Billy is concerned, all he needed to do was back up what Anne said and / or feed Feldman any snippets that Anne had briefed him about.

I don't say it's definite or even likely. Merely possible. Anyway, even if my speculations are correct, this brings us no nearer to figuring out who wrote the bloody thing as no-one's handwriting matches.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Graham]

One 'theory' that was floating around the old boards in what now seems to me like a mythical past, was that the Diary was concocted and written by a supporter of Florie Maybrick as an attempt to have her conviction brought to appeal on the basis that she bumped James off by means of 'justifiable homicide', presumably before he did her in too! Not a bad idea, as James did have direct contact with the East End, and was well-known as a womaniser if not a user of prostitutes.

Florie did in fact allude to something that James confessed to her, something horrible, but she never said precisely what it was.

Graham

[caz]

Martin Fido said that Anne could have written the Diary 'with one hand tied behind her back'...

Yes, Graham, and it's a most peculiar image! Most people I know only use one of their hands to write with, so I'm not sure it's a very useful observation.

However, that Anne was capable of proper, productive research is illustrated by her part-authorship (along with Shirley Harrison) of the book 'The Final Victim', about Florie Maybrick.

Actually, it was The Last Victim and Anne co-wrote it with Carol Emmas, not Shirley.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

With regard to Anne - why not?

Hi Steve,

Well for a start, if Anne had a hand in this (while the other was tied behind her back), she would not have been sufficiently mentally challenged to run with Mike's shockingly poor Devereux provenance to begin with, only to think of the far superior 'in the Graham family for years' alternative two years down the line, after her estranged hubby had royally buggered everything up by claiming to have written it himself.

And then of course we have Keithypoo and the best possible provenance, which for my money overshadows any last possibility that Anne was in on a modern hoax. How would she have engineered the evidence that the thing had come out of Battlecrease, and why would she then have totally failed to capitalise on it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Yes, Graham, and it's a most peculiar image! Most people I know only use one of their hands to write with, so I'm not sure it's a very useful observation.



Actually, it was The Last Victim and Anne co-wrote it with Carol Emmas, not Shirley.

Love,

Caz
X

Be gentle with me, Caz - I haven't been on these boards for ages, having just returned from the wilderness.

Yes - sorry about getting Anne's book all wrong, especially when it was sitting on the shelf within arm's reach....

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

Inside Story

Ripper Diary, The Inside Story is quite revealing in this respect...

Seems to me that the modern suspect with the most ability to construct a forgery (Anne), was the one person who consistently failed to capitalise on the Diary, until having her arm twisted quite late on in the story...the person who did best out of it was clearly incapable of stringing something like this together, and pissed it away anyway...sorry but that's the brutal truth...

Following on from the Hitler Diaries farce, I think any half-credible modern forger would've got the all-critical provenance far better tied down than the chaotic and contradictory tale that unfolded in this case...and I suppose this may contribute to my gut-feel that if it's a forgery (and I very much fear it is) then it's an old one...

But to be honest, the authors of the "Inside Story" and Paul Begg are probably the most qualified to make a judgement in this respect...they lived through the unfolding Barrett family nightmare after all, and it'd be interesting to hear, how, with the benefit of hindsight, THEY now view things...after all none of the rest of us qualify a fraction so well...

All the best

Dave

[Steven Russell]

[quote=caz;238265]Hi Steve,

Well for a start, if Anne had a hand in this (while the other was tied behind her back), she would not have been sufficiently mentally challenged to run with Mike's shockingly poor Devereux provenance to begin with, only to think of the far superior 'in the Graham family for years' alternative two years down the line, after her estranged hubby had royally buggered everything up by claiming to have written it himself.

And then of course we have Keithypoo and the best possible provenance, which for my money overshadows any last possibility that Anne was in on a modern hoax. How would she have engineered the evidence that the thing had come out of Battlecrease, and why would she then have totally failed to capitalise on it?

Hello, Caz.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. It seems to me quite possible that Anne would concoct a more convincing provenance after Mike had royally buggered everything up (possibly after stumbling across the Illustrated Mirror as mentioned in my earlier posts).

As for the second paragraph, I have never read a bad word about Keith Skinner and, assumung he has proof of what he says, we must take this very seriously. Therefore the points and questions you raise are completely valid and very difficult to explain away. No doubt one day (hopefully soon) Mr Skinner will be at liberty to divulge what he knows. I have a feeling this could be quite a bombshell.

I've been re-reading all the books I have pertaining to the diary (including yours which I enjoyed very much) and have reached the all-too-familiar conclusion that the more I find out the less I know. However, I find that the once least likely solution (an old forgery) is becoming more and more appealing.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Hello, Caz.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. It seems to me quite possible that Anne would concoct a more convincing provenance after Mike had royally buggered everything up (possibly after stumbling across the Illustrated Mirror as mentioned in my earlier posts).

I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Mike or Billy would have / could have stumbled across the Illustrated Mirror. What's the scenario you have in mind? Can we at least drop Billy out of the picture?

As an aside I think one of the best reasons not to believe a word Anne ever said was her dragging her father into this. Despicable.

[Graham]

As an aside I think one of the best reasons not to believe a word Anne ever said was her dragging her father into this. Despicable.

In fairness to Anne, if Paul Feldman is to be believed, she long resisted any intrusion upon her father's privacy, given his frail health, but eventually gave in under Feldman's relentless pressure. I rather get the impression, reading Feldman's book, that he didn't get a fat lot of useful information from Billy Graham from whom, I believe, he was hoping to obtain confirmation of a family link between him, Billy Graham, and Florie Maybrick. But at least Billy Graham did say that he first saw the Diary in about 1940, and of course it's impossible to refute this now.

G

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Graham

If you hadn't posted that, I'd have felt obliged to, and I frankly wouldn't have wanted to publicly appear as a Diary apologist!

I'd still love to hear how Caroline, Keith or Paul feel about things twenty years on from the beginning...I'm not being "funny"...just genuinely curious...

All the best

Dave

[Steven Russell]

I am still having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Mike or Billy would have / could have stumbled across the Illustrated Mirror. What's the scenario you have in mind? Can we at least drop Billy out of the picture?

As an aside I think one of the best reasons not to believe a word Anne ever said was her dragging her father into this. Despicable.

Hello, Sir Bob.
The scenario I have in mind is that Mike confesses to forging the diary thus blowing the Tony Devereux story out of the water. The diary is now a confirmed forgery and therefore utterly worthless. This is extremely bad news for the pro-diary camp. However, further investigation suggests that Mike's confession is bogus and anything he says should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Anne Barrett has been working closely with Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy, helping research the Maybrick angle. She comes across the Illustrated Mirror article and thinks: disputed diary, tin box, intention to turn into a shilling shocker. A much better provenance. It was in a tin box my father owned and I asked Tony to give it to Mike, hoping he would make it into a novel.

Billy merely needs to go along with the gag. He might have found it quite funny.

Of course, if any of the above is true (and I don't insist that it is), then the watch must be a modern forgery too.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[caz]

Be gentle with me, Caz - I haven't been on these boards for ages, having just returned from the wilderness.

Yes - sorry about getting Anne's book all wrong, especially when it was sitting on the shelf within arm's reach....

Graham

Am I not always gentle with you, Graham?

Incidentally, have you noticed how nice and calm the atmosphere now is on the diary threads? Once upon a time, anyone suggesting an old fake would get as much stick from modern hoax theorists as that much rarer breed, the Maybrickian.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Following on from the Hitler Diaries farce, I think any half-credible modern forger would've got the all-critical provenance far better tied down than the chaotic and contradictory tale that unfolded in this case...and I suppose this may contribute to my gut-feel that if it's a forgery (and I very much fear it is) then it's an old one...

But to be honest, the authors of the "Inside Story" and Paul Begg are probably the most qualified to make a judgement in this respect...they lived through the unfolding Barrett family nightmare after all, and it'd be interesting to hear, how, with the benefit of hindsight, THEY now view things...after all none of the rest of us qualify a fraction so well...

All the best

Dave

Thanks Dave.

I can only agree with your point about the provenance. I don't think one can have it both ways. If Anne is proposed as the brains behind a Barrett fake, because there's nobody else one can reasonably accuse, then why on earth would she have let Mike provide the Godawful 'provenance' that he got it from a dead mate who refused to answer any questions about it? She proved herself capable of coming up with a much better story in 1994, so why didn't she do just that in 1992, when Mike would have been onside and when it mattered most?

It was Keith, Paul Begg and Shirley who lived through those early years. I only got involved after reading Feldy's book in 1998 and wondering why the hell a ripper confession that had emerged six years previously was still knocking around or being taken seriously by anyone.

Keith and I have long suspected the diary to be an old fake, but we have always tried to test our suspicions, and remained open to any sensible and tangible evidence to the contrary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Steve,

Well for a start, if Anne had a hand in this (while the other was tied behind her back), she would not have been sufficiently mentally challenged to run with Mike's shockingly poor Devereux provenance to begin with, only to think of the far superior 'in the Graham family for years' alternative two years down the line, after her estranged hubby had royally buggered everything up by claiming to have written it himself.

And then of course we have Keithypoo and the best possible provenance, which for my money overshadows any last possibility that Anne was in on a modern hoax. How would she have engineered the evidence that the thing had come out of Battlecrease, and why would she then have totally failed to capitalise on it?

Hello, Caz.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. It seems to me quite possible that Anne would concoct a more convincing provenance after Mike had royally buggered everything up (possibly after stumbling across the Illustrated Mirror as mentioned in my earlier posts).

Hi Steve,

Anne knew Mike better than anyone. I just can't see a forger with any gumption at all letting Mike dictate such an unconvincing provenance to start with. If Anne had the ability to create this diary, she'd have had the imagination back in 1992, before the thing went public, to concoct the more convincing 'in the family' provenance. It makes no sense to me at all unless Anne had nothing to do with its creation and knew Mike hadn't either, and was only trying to limit the damage he did in June 1994 with his foolish forgery claims.

As for the second paragraph, I have never read a bad word about Keith Skinner and, assumung he has proof of what he says, we must take this very seriously. Therefore the points and questions you raise are completely valid and very difficult to explain away. No doubt one day (hopefully soon) Mr Skinner will be at liberty to divulge what he knows. I have a feeling this could be quite a bombshell.

Thanks Steve, I appreciate your thoughts on this. I don't know about a 'bombshell'. Even if the most stubborn modern hoax theorists had to concede that the diary did indeed come out of the Maybrick house, it wouldn't resolve the mystery of how it got there in the first place, or whether James himself was alive at the time.

I've been re-reading all the books I have pertaining to the diary (including yours which I enjoyed very much) and have reached the all-too-familiar conclusion that the more I find out the less I know. However, I find that the once least likely solution (an old forgery) is becoming more and more appealing.

Thanks for this too. In 2003, when Ripper Diary was launched at the Liverpool Conference, I said exactly the same thing, that 'the more I find out the less I know'. I think that's a healthy position to concede.

Love,

Caz
X