Inspiration for the Fake 'Diary'

[PaulB]

Hi Paul, Caz, and Jonathan

Okay yes the eight little whores poem is possibly from McCormick but I don't see much else. As I say, that dissertation is mostly an excuse for Harris to once more expose McCormick and not the Diary at all, so he goes on at length about Chapman and Levisohn and Le Queux. What he says was used in the Diary is Ryan's book not McCormick and that is only stated right at the end of his dissertation almost as if it is an afterthought.

All the best

Chris

Indeed. However, Harris did make a lot of noise on the message boards about "Eight Little Whores", and his story about threatening the angina-suffering McCormick with exposure as a fraud and charlatan on national television was to make the point that McCormick had, to Harris's satisfaction at least, acknowledged authorship of the rhyme. This, in turn, Harris used to demonstrate that rhyme in the diary was "Eight Little Whores" based. At least as far as I recall without wading through those dissertations again. I had enough of them first time round.

[PaulB]

The Poste House in Cumberland Street was convenient to the Cotton Exchange as was the thoroughfare in Liverpool known as Whitechapel. Those were probably a couple of the ingredients that helped someone to mock up the Maybrick Diary, as the candidacy of James Maybrick as Jack conveniently all fell into place.

Probably, Chris. Probably. But who was that 'someone' and when did he/she 'mock up' the story. That's the question the lovely Caz is valiantly defending as still open.

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

When you write investigated turning up zilch, who did this investigating? You don't mean the police do you? The hoax never involved the fraud squad taking an interest -- have I got that right?

To Caz

Do you have a [provisional] theory, or subscribe to one, as to who created the Diary, and when?

[Cogidubnus]

I do indeed recall that. Ah, happy days. :-)

Not being funny (and not knowing all of the the history behind this thread) are we talking a "Poste Restante" here, or something otherwise?

Dave

[caz]

To PaulB

When you write investigated turning up zilch, who did this investigating? You don't mean the police do you? The hoax never involved the fraud squad taking an interest -- have I got that right?

To Caz

Do you have a [provisional] theory, or subscribe to one, as to who created the Diary, and when?

Hi Jonathan,

My guess is no better than anyone else's, as to who created it. And guessing is all anyone can do in the absence of a firm date for the penman/womanship and the absence of any potential suspects with even broadly similar handwriting.

I would tend to rule out rather than in, so for me out goes a post-1970 creation, and out go all the usual modern suspects.

Incidentally, Scotland Yard did investigate for fraud back in 1993 and came up empty. They did conclude it was probably a modern fake, but based that on the various 'expert' opinions doing the rounds at the time, rather than on any investigative work of their own. They couldn't pin anything on the Barretts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Not being funny (and not knowing all of the the history behind this thread) are we talking a "Poste Restante" here, or something otherwise?

Dave

Hi Dave,

If I may answer this one, nobody knows what the diary author had in mind when writing about taking refreshment at the Poste House. But the only post in the dictionary with an e on the end is "Poste Restante", which could be why the author thought Post House should have an e too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jonathan,

My guess is no better than anyone else's, as to who created it. And guessing is all anyone can do in the absence of a firm date for the penman/womanship and the absence of any potential suspects with even broadly similar handwriting.

I would tend to rule out rather than in, so for me out goes a post-1970 creation, and out go all the usual modern suspects.

Incidentally, Scotland Yard did investigate for fraud back in 1993 and came up empty. They did conclude it was probably a modern fake, but based that on the various 'expert' opinions doing the rounds at the time, rather than on any investigative work of their own. They couldn't pin anything on the Barretts.

Love,

Caz
X

Well his first sworn affadivit was pretty damming would you not agree

[Soothsayer]

Well his first sworn affadivit was pretty damming would you not agree

Barrett's claim to have written the journal - whether sworn or not - are no more reliable than his subsequent claims not to have written the journal. If you wish to cite either as evidence for or against Barrett's authorship, you need to do a little more than simply cite the version which most suits your argument.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the claims of an emotionally damaged and highly emotionally charged person, heavy with drink, irresponsibly thrown unexpectedly into the spotlight, whilst clinging desperately to the last of his family life and and thus his sanity (for his family appears to have defined his mental state throughout his long journey with the journal). I wouldn't trust those claims, full stop. The fact that his solicitor retracted them the next day would have immediately rewarded me for my intellectual caution.

[Kaz]

Barrett's claim to have written the journal - whether sworn or not - are no more reliable than his subsequent claims not to have written the journal. If you wish to cite either as evidence for or against Barrett's authorship, you need to do a little more than simply cite the version which most suits your argument.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the claims of an emotionally damaged and highly emotionally charged person, heavy with drink, irresponsibly thrown unexpectedly into the spotlight, whilst clinging desperately to the last of his family life and and thus his sanity (for his family appears to have defined his mental state throughout his long journey with the journal). I wouldn't trust those claims, full stop. The fact that his solicitor retracted them the next day would have immediately rewarded me for my intellectual caution.

What he said!

[Trevor Marriott]

Barrett's claim to have written the journal - whether sworn or not - are no more reliable than his subsequent claims not to have written the journal. If you wish to cite either as evidence for or against Barrett's authorship, you need to do a little more than simply cite the version which most suits your argument.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the claims of an emotionally damaged and highly emotionally charged person, heavy with drink, irresponsibly thrown unexpectedly into the spotlight, whilst clinging desperately to the last of his family life and and thus his sanity (for his family appears to have defined his mental state throughout his long journey with the journal). I wouldn't trust those claims, full stop. The fact that his solicitor retracted them the next day would have immediately rewarded me for my intellectual caution.

Well a lot might have depended on how switched on his solicitor was when he took down the statement. You have to bear in mind with the first statement he was making admissions to being concerned in a major fraud involving a lot of money for which if convicted would have resulted in jail time.

Not all solicitors are criminal solicitors and anyone off the street can go into a solicitors and swear out an affadavit. Solicitors will take your money without question. Barrett having then sworn it out might have either been advised by other parties about the consequences of his actions, or that solicitor having sought advice from other more qualified solicitors made him aware of what he had done. Hence the sudden change.

I cannot see what he was hoping to achieve by making the statement in any event, unless as I suspect a significant number of people were less that happy with having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Before the police and criminal Act 1984 came in which made it law that all interviews were tape recorded, suspects wishing to make written statements could either write them themselves or ask the police officer to write it down.

Over the years I took down hundreds of these where suspects wished to unburden their consciences and I can say that the first statement they made was normally the correct and accurate version. Simply because they wanted to get it off their chests. Having read Barretts statement I firmly belive that what he set out in that first affadvit was the real truth.

The reasons for the change thereafter can only be speculated upon.

But I am sure there wil be some here who will argue to the contary

[Steven Russell]

Thanks, Trevor. That was, at least for me, a very illuminating post.

The only thing that worries me is that the 'diary' - if it is a hoax - is a very good one and from what I have read of Barrett it seems unlikely that he could have written it. Still, I could be doing him a disservice here.

Whoever wrote the thing, I believe it to be modern in origin. Despite some good work by Tempus on another thread where he compares the 'diary' handwriting to that on the Stoke Newington postcard, to my untrained eye the 'diary' writing just looks modern. The lower case 'r' alone certainly separates it from the postcard.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Jonathan H]

I'll ask this [again] as I do not know the answer:

1) Were the police in any way involved with investigating the 'Diary'?

and,

2) Has anybody connected with the alleged provenance of the 'Diary' made claims to its authenticity under oath, or perhaps made a statuary declaration to that effect?

I presume the answer is a no to one or both -- but I do not know this for a fact.

[Steven Russell]

Call me cynical, Jonathan, but some unscrupulous people have been known to lie under oath.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[PaulB]

I cannot see what he was hoping to achieve by making the statement in any event, unless as I suspect a significant number of people were less that happy with having the wool pulled over their eyes.

Read a few books about the background to it all, Trevor, or listen to the people who were there. The admission is worthless. Sadly.

[PaulB]

I'll ask this [again] as I do not know the answer:

1) Were the police in any way involved with investigating the 'Diary'?

and,

2) Has anybody connected with the alleged provenance of the 'Diary' made claims to its authenticity under oath, or perhaps made a statuary declaration to that effect?

I presume the answer is a no to one or both -- but I do not know this for a fact.

Jonathan,
1) Yes, it was seriously investigated for fraud.
2) Ask Caz. But it would make no difference.
Paul