Inspiration for the Fake 'Diary'

[Stephen Thomas]

A question, Caz

Who do you think decided that the diarist's deliberately left clue in Millers Court was the supposed 'FM' on the partition behind the bed.

[caz]

It's difficult for people to understand the complex dynamics of what was going on at the time, Caz. One had to be there, and even then everything was none too clear! How is Mike these day? Do you know?
Paul

Yes, I can imagine! In many ways I'm glad to be a secondary source. Reading your foreword in Feldy's book was what started me off and made me want to know more about the people supposedly connected with this strange document. So I blame you.

My sources tell me that Mike is doing well and has been back to the old "Devereux gave it to me - I think it's genuine" story for many years now.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

3) The Diary subject should just be left as it is so that it doesnt cause a repeat of the venom spitting anger of the 1990's to rear up again. We have had enough of circular debate as it is without The Diary again. We are only left with guesswork anyway.

Why not apply that argument to the ripper subject too, Phil? There has been regular and frequent 'venom spitting anger' on many a suspect thread for years, even when all has been quiet on the diary front. All you have is circular debate and guesswork when you propose any kind of solution to either mystery on these boards, but it's not compulsory for you to join in and you can leave it 'as it is' if you like.

Love,

Caz
X

[PaulB]

See my post #65, Jonathan.



I don't believe anyone alive in the 1990s could realistically have made such a claim under oath, because how would they have been able to establish its 'authenticity' without any supporting documentary evidence to that effect? The diary itself doesn't count - obviously. And I don't think either of the Barretts ever claimed to know the diary was authentic. What they believe would be another matter entirely.

Love,

Caz
X

It's difficult for people to understand the complex dynamics of what was going on at the time, Caz. One had to be there, and even then everything was none too clear! How is Mike these day? Do you know?
Paul

[PaulB]

Hi Trevor,

I would agree - his spelling was even more shocking than yours, Trev.

Mike damned himself - and everything he ever claimed, for and against the diary - with all the lies he told, on oath and off.

He was never able to support a single claim he made with actual hard evidence. No evidence that Tony Devereux gave him the diary; no evidence that he wrote it himself; no evidence that Anne wrote it; no evidence that someone else wrote it with Mike's knowledge or input - nothing but lies, half-truths and baseless claims to be had from that particular source.

All his various (and contradictory) 'confession' statements were made in the wake of Anne leaving him and taking their only daughter with her. At the time he blamed Feldy for all the bad things that were happening in his life and his forgery claims had the desired effect of completely undermining Feldy's efforts to prove a direct family link from the Barretts back to the Maybricks. Mike was terrified that Feldy was going to claim his daughter was descended from Jack the Ripper. That's a powerful motive for trying to stop the rot.

Love,

Caz
X

Trevor doesn't believe any of that, Caz. But it's good to know that your memory of these events is the same as mine.

[caz]

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

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

See my post #65, Jonathan.

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 don't believe anyone alive in the 1990s could realistically have made such a claim under oath, because how would they have been able to establish its 'authenticity' without any supporting documentary evidence to that effect? The diary itself doesn't count - obviously. And I don't think either of the Barretts ever claimed to know the diary was authentic. What they believe would be another matter entirely.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Hi Trevor,

I would agree - his spelling was even more shocking than yours, Trev.

Mike damned himself - and everything he ever claimed, for and against the diary - with all the lies he told, on oath and off.

He was never able to support a single claim he made with actual hard evidence. No evidence that Tony Devereux gave him the diary; no evidence that he wrote it himself; no evidence that Anne wrote it; no evidence that someone else wrote it with Mike's knowledge or input - nothing but lies, half-truths and baseless claims to be had from that particular source.

All his various (and contradictory) 'confession' statements were made in the wake of Anne leaving him and taking their only daughter with her. At the time he blamed Feldy for all the bad things that were happening in his life and his forgery claims had the desired effect of completely undermining Feldy's efforts to prove a direct family link from the Barretts back to the Maybricks. Mike was terrified that Feldy was going to claim his daughter was descended from Jack the Ripper. That's a powerful motive for trying to stop the rot.

Love,

Caz
X

[Soothsayer]

I see. And it's "glisters" by the way.

Steve.

Origin All That Glitters is Not Gold
The original form of this phrase was 'all that glisters is not gold'. The 'glitters' version long ago superseded the original and is now almost universally used.

I see. And that's just a matter of perspective, by the way.

[halomanuk]

Maybrick was the perfect 'foil' for the diary fakes.
The way it was originally discovered also left more questions that answers.

[Steven Russell]

I see. And it's "glisters" by the way.

Steve.

[Soothsayer]

Soothsayer: How do you get round the fact that the 'diary' does not appear to be in Maybrick's handwriting?

Best wishes,
Steve.

But get around what? The fact that a reasonably well-bred person in the 1880s wrote in the familiar and formal copperplate style for public documents such as letters and Wills, but may well have written in a cackhanded, unstructured way when writing for his own personal benefit, never intending it for the bookshelves of unknown others?

The handwriting doesn't concern me in the slightest, and for that very reason. If, however, you produced a known example of James Maybrick's private scribblings, ideally during a period of time when he was known to be murdering people, and it looked nothing like the handwriting in the journal, I would genuinely admit it must have been a hoax.

All that glitters is not gold, Steve, and there are no riches to be had in citing the handwriting examples we have - the real money lies in the handwriting we don't have ...

On a related theme, I recently came across an old notebook I was using twenty years ago to scribble down a load of thoughts meant only for my reference, and the first thing which struck me was how little I recognised even my own hand, for it looked nothing like how I write in business nor even in private. The moment was fleeting, but highly illuminating (as gold so often is) ...

[PaulB]

People have been banned for saying less on here but I am not vindictive I wont be making a complaint.

In the months ahead I think you will firmly regret making that statement.

Sometimes is good to play the fool but you should never underestimate one especially an experienced one

Trevor,
I have no evidence on which to deny that you are the experienced fool you claim to be.

People get banned for habitually making utterly crass and objectionable statements like calling Keith Skinner a thief, suggesting that Martin Fido has often back-peddled on his theory, claiming that a powerful cartel stops you being given information, or suggesting that I helped Mike Barrett write his 'confession'. People get banned for strutting about making provocative remarks intended to start a flame war so they can kid themselves that someone actually takes them seriously. People get banned for uttering all the stupid and ill-informed nonsense that you vomit onto these message boards with a tireless determination.

People don't get banned for telling the truth.

And there is absolutely nothing that is ever going to make me regret saying anything about you because if you ever bring new information to the table - and you haven't brought any so far - I will welcome it, warmly and enthusiastically because I welcome any and all good and new information. But right now, right this minute, with nothing to back you up, just displays of crass and naive posturing, and rude and offensive comments, what I have said about you is mild and is, above all else, true. But, Trevor, I hope you will bring us new information in the coming months. I really do. I know you won't believe that, but it's true. The subject could do with an influx of new information. In the meantime, play the fool if you like, but don't bleat about it when people believe your performance is the real you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would Paul get banned?

Just saying it as it is.

You have no grounds Trevor.

Monty

Leahy got banned for less

[Steven Russell]

Soothsayer: How do you get round the fact that the 'diary' does not appear to be in Maybrick's handwriting?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Monty]

People have been banned for saying less on here but I am not vindictive I wont be making a complaint.

In the months ahead I think you will firmly regret making that statement.

Sometimes is good to play the fool but you should never underestimate one especially an experienced one

Why would Paul get banned?

Just saying it as it is.

You have no grounds Trevor.

Monty