Inspiration for the Fake 'Diary'

[Steven Russell]

Cheers, Caz.

[caz]

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

Hi Graham,

Billy was indeed in very frail health by this time, and it would be only natural for him to have accepted at face value everything his daughter was saying about this book that she had found among his possessions. Whether or not he ever saw the actual diary, I do believe he was remembering a book that he believed was the one Anne meant.

I wouldn't agree that it's 'impossible' to refute his recollection now. Proof of a later date for the diary's creation would do it, or proof that it was somewhere else at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi again Steve,

Anne naturally had every reason to try and undermine Mike's forgery claims somehow, wherever the truth lay. So your scenario here is as good as any, assuming she couldn't prove he wasn't a forger. But it still wouldn't indicate that she had a hand in the diary's creation, or even knew it was a fake.

However, I don't think Anne ever worked with Shirley and Sally on the Maybrick angle; it was Feldy who got her research juices flowing. In fact, Shirley and Doreen felt terribly let down by Anne when they found out what she had revealed out of the blue to Feldy, in the wake of Mike's disastrous 'confession' to the press. She was clearly either not being straight with anyone now, or she had not been straight with Shirley and Doreen at the start, when it could have made all the difference.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steven Russell]

Thanks for that, Caz. I should have said Feldman rather than Shirley and Sally. Otherwise my scenario stands.

But, of course, it's pure speculation and therefore probably rubbish. It's just that the IM article leapt off the page at me as I was reading Feldy's book.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[rjpalmer]

I'd just as soon not return to the Diary debate, but having been accused of being 'cowardly' on another thread, for supposedly not having the 'guts' to opening accuse Anne Graham of involvement in the Maybrick hoax (I used a feminine pronoun when describing the Diarist), let me just clear the air.

My belief that the diary shows a feminine hand is independent of any suspicion I may or may not have about Graham's cooperation in this hoax. (And yes, I do have suspicions!)

Perhaps I'm sexist as all hell, but I think most men are rather selfish and dim when it comes to family relationships--Victorian men doubly so--and the diarist's obsession with the children, with this and that brother, etc., strikes me as more the attitude of a female author than a male author. Men care deeply for their children, of course, but they aren't always comfortable in expressing it, due to cultural norms, and the diarist's frothing on about bunny and bobo and his brother Michael strikes a false chord with me. It is a feminine attitude, in my chauvinistic opinion. More akin to a Jane Austen (whom I love) than a Henry Fielding (whom I like even more) though on an infinitely less intelligent level.

Also, the whole schtick of the diary seems to be the same general structure of a romance novel. A man could have written it, but I've always suspected a woman. Further, Maybrick is depicted as a crude swine, and that strengthens my suspicions that a woman was behind it. A male author would have tended to make him more cruel and debauched, than simply stupid and crude. I realize this impression of mine is highly subjective and up for debate, and the difference between a male and female 'voice' is uncertain and subtle--especially in fiction, and the diary IS fiction--but agree or disagree, that is my opinion. I think our primary author is an authoress.

Anyway, I find the accusation disingenuous. My suspicions against the Barretts is no worse, and indeed I'd say is considerably less worse, then the accusations leveled against Eddie Lyons by those who think the Diary came out of Battlecrease in 1992. Either directly or indirectly, they are accusing Lyons of stealing from his employer's clients. What evidence can they present for this outrageous suggestion? Is Mr. Lyons even aware that he is being accused of a crime by certain Ripperologists? And if it was a theft, isn't Anne Graham being accused of taking part in peddling a stolen object and lying about it? Like I say, the accusation is disingenuous.

Finally, I have been informed that errors in the diary are of no interest to Diary aficionados. Since the diary is an admitted fake, we need not bother ourselves with errors in the text, even though they might give us a clue as to when and how and by whom it was written. Mr. Begg's "three questions" need not be answer. The diary is a fake, and that is the end of it.

I, obviously disagree. I'm interested in how the following phrase appeared in the Diary, in describing the so-called 'double event.'


“Within the quarter of the hour I found another dirty bitch willing to sell her wares.”


As I asked elsewhere, how and why did our hoaxer come up with this idea? The distance between Berner Street and Mitre Square is indeed about a fifteen minute's walk. Are the 'old hoax' theorist suggesting the diarist was so knowledgeable of the geography of the East End that they accurately estimated the walking distance? Or are they suggesting first-hand knowledge? And is this 15 minute span even plausible?

Even the savants at Scotland Yard had a dim knowledge of the local geography, referring to such things as "Mitre Court" and three Hebrew gentlemen rolling up to Berner Street in a dogcart. They even mix-up various crime scenes. I am not seeing books written before the modern era (1960s-80s) that deal with specific geography in any sophisticated way.

Is the suggestion that the Liverpool hoaxer walked the streets of Whitechapel, stopwatch in hand?

Maybe so, maybe so. But I humbly suggest that she (or he!) looked no further than the opening sentences of Chapter 3 of Donald Rumbelow's popular book, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. The same book, by the way, that features the 'Punch' cartoon, alluded to in the diary. It was written in the 1960s.

[The Baron]

Stewart P Evans:


"Catherine Kempshall


Something that has always struck me as significant is a case some seven years later that has some extraordinary parallels with the Maybrick case. This was a murder that had the following in common with the Maybrick case.

It was the murder of a Liverpool merchant, in Liverpool, by his female lover aged 32 years.

It involved a high profile trial at the same venue, St. George's Hall, Liverpool.

She evoked great public sympathy appearing in court heavily veiled.

She was found guilty and sentenced to death.

There was a great appeal for clemency, Florence Maybrick being mentioned.

She was reprieved and spared a fate on the gallows.

The press stated that she claimed her victim was one and the same as Jack the Ripper.

So here we have a Liverpool merchant murder victim being mentioned as Jack the Ripper. I'm sure anyone doing any sort of research on Liverpool cases would know of this one, but the Maybrick case was closer (1889) to the Ripper murders and had a higher proile.

She was Catherine Kempshall and her victim was Edgar S. Holland."



So the fake diary has no original idea whatsoever!




The Baron

[barnflatwyngarde]

Stewart P Evans:


"Catherine Kempshall


Something that has always struck me as significant is a case some seven years later that has some extraordinary parallels with the Maybrick case. This was a murder that had the following in common with the Maybrick case.

It was the murder of a Liverpool merchant, in Liverpool, by his female lover aged 32 years.

It involved a high profile trial at the same venue, St. George's Hall, Liverpool.

She evoked great public sympathy appearing in court heavily veiled.

She was found guilty and sentenced to death.

There was a great appeal for clemency, Florence Maybrick being mentioned.

She was reprieved and spared a fate on the gallows.

The press stated that she claimed her victim was one and the same as Jack the Ripper.

So here we have a Liverpool merchant murder victim being mentioned as Jack the Ripper. I'm sure anyone doing any sort of research on Liverpool cases would know of this one, but the Maybrick case was closer (1889) to the Ripper murders and had a higher proile.

She was Catherine Kempshall and her victim was Edgar S. Holland."



So the fake diary has no original idea whatsoever!




The Baron

Very interesting Baron.

I managed to find out that this topic had been raised by Stewart Evans on these very boards (link attached).

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/6509-inspiration-for-the-fake-diary

[Scott Nelson]

It's the first page of this thread.

[barnflatwyngarde]

It's the first page of this thread.

Hi Scott, yeah I know that, I was just trying to be helpful for folks new to this particular topic.

[The Baron]

Melvin Harris:

"A message in from Alan Gray confirms that the Sphere book Vol 2 (plus other vols) was owned by Mike Barrett BEFORE the Diary emerged. (Confirmed by his sister)

Mike first engaged him at 11 AM Sunday 14th August 1994 (to search for his wife). Further engaged him to expose the Diary. Then (Sept) told the story behind the lines "O costly..." NOTE WELL:- the Sphere volume had been left with Mike's solicitor LONG BEFORE the break with his wife and the 'confession.'

Note also that, as R.J. Palmer independently spotted, the quoted lines are not opening lines but are taken from a later verse. Thus the Diary uses AN EXTRACT that, to date, has only been found in the essay on George Herbert in Vol 2.

Mike's volume has already been seen by others and can be inspected whenever I am in London"



It was Mike! This is a great proof! Well done gentlemen Harris and Palmer!




The Baron

[caz]

And so The Great Baron beats on, a boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

The Sphere Vol 2, which Mike eventually handed over to Alan Gray in December 1994, was never left with the solicitor and was in any case a second hand copy, almost certainly used by a university student.

Unsurprisingly, the new and unused Sphere Vol 2, which Mike claimed to have had in his home since 1989, never materialised - like the famous auction ticket for the photo album.

Had our artful dodger been able to produce either for Alan Gray, he would have done. He was desperate to prove he had inside knowledge of the diary's creation.

As a reminder, the extract in the diary consists of just five words:

'Oh costly intercourse
of death'

My 1858 Complete Works of Richard Crashaw features the relevant lines at the very top of page 187, beginning:

'O, costly intercourse
Of death's, and worse
Divided loves : while Son and Mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another !
Quick deaths that grow
And gather as they come and go...'

Here is the preceding line, from the bottom of page 186:

'Her eyes bleed tears, His wounds weep blood !'

For completeness, the short, four-line extract from page 187 of my Sphere Vol 2 paperback appears thus:

'O costly intercourse
Of deaths, & worse,
Divided loves. While son & mother
Discourse alternate wounds to one another. ('Sancta Maria')'


If Mike plucked the diary's five words from the Sphere book [managing to make two transcription mistakes and later to remember it as 'sweet' intercourse], he could have had no clue what comes before or after those four lines in the poem, but as usual his old friend serendipity came to the rescue, because the relevant diary entry features Sir Jim complaining of hideous nightmares, in which he keeps 'seeing blood pouring from the bitches', and curses God for creating them. He wants to 'boil boil boil' and see if their 'eyes pop'.

Then just a couple of lines further on:

'Sir Jim will cut them all
Oh costly intercourse
of death
Banish the thoughts banish them banish them ha ha ha, look towards the sensible brother...'

Earlier in the diary, Sir Jim repeats the line 'May comes and goes', no fewer than fives times, in the context of killing 'all the whores' and not shedding 'a tear'.


I wonder, was it Mike or Anne who was influenced by Macbeth, quaking in fear as he sees Banquo's ghost shaking his gory locks at him?

Yet who would have thought the Barretts of Goldie Street to have had such bloody thoughts in them?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

And so The Great Baron beats on, a boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

What can I do, if the ethereal essence of your world is taking me in totally different dimensions and places

Unsurprisingly, the new and unused Sphere Vol 2, which Mike claimed to have had in his home since 1989, never materialised - like the famous auction ticket for the photo album.

I like this bit:

A message in from Alan Gray confirms that the Sphere book Vol 2 (plus other vols) was owned by Mike Barrett BEFORE the Diary emerged. (Confirmed by his sister)




The Baron

[c.d.]

And so The Great Baron beats on, a boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

I got it! I got it! A reference to the last line of "The Great Gatsby."

Smartly done.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

never materialised - like the famous auction ticket for the photo album.

And, in stark contrast, you and Keith will now produce the receipt for Mike's purchase of this heavily underlined and highlighted copy of the Sphere, Volume 2, that he purchased in a Liverpool used bookstore in 1994 or 1995--thus bringing a speedy end to our inquiries.

Or am I wrong about that?

RP

[caz]

I like this bit:

A message in from Alan Gray confirms that the Sphere book Vol 2 (plus other vols) was owned by Mike Barrett BEFORE the Diary emerged. (Confirmed by his sister)

The Baron

Anything directly from the source? A second hand confirmation in brackets, supposedly from another Barrett family member, is hardly any better than the second hand Vol 2 Mike finally managed to produce. Did his sister helpfully destroy the original?

Love,

Caz
X