Inspiration for the Fake 'Diary'

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;218466]Whoa Trevor,

That's a big accusation there Trevor.

Not one to make without supporting evidence.

I'm sure Paul will respond as he sees fit, however I'd be interested in what you got to 'prove' the accusation Paul is involved in not one but two forgeries.

...And we were getting on so well.

Monty
[/QUOTE

No accusation, thats been made clear in my post I am not that daft.

[Monty]

Whoa Trevor,

That's a big accusation there Trevor.

Not one to make without supporting evidence.

I'm sure Paul will respond as he sees fit, however I'd be interested in what you got to 'prove' the accusation Paul is involved in not one but two forgeries.

...And we were getting on so well.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Believe what you want, Trevor. But as you haven't read the books, haven't read the articles, have undertaken any investigations into the diary of your own, probably haven't seen, handled, examined the diary itself, haven't met and questioned any of those involved, weren't with the police when they undertook their fraud investigations, and weren't ever up half the night with phone calls from a drunken Mike Barrett, I really don't think you are in much of a position to dispute what I say or, indeed, comment. And frankly, since I know and witnessed that man in his state of mental turmoil, I'm not really much interested whether you think the affidavit paints the picture or not. It's pretty much what happened, is what I witnessed.

And so a drunken man in the state you describe goes into a solicitors and with great detail describes the events surrounding a forgery. Come on !

This is the second controverial Ripper issue you have been "personally" involved in where the question of "who was responsible for the writing of " has been brought into question

How coincidental is that and they say lightning doesnt strike twice in the same place.

Just to make it clear I am not inferring or suggesting anyhting untoward I am simply stating fact.

One simple question Paul

Did you help Barrett write the draft to take to the solicitor ?

[PaulB]

Well if he didnt forge it, when the heat was put on him why not just say so. Why go to all the trouble of giving such a detailed and intricate explanation, which in my opinion could only have come from someone who was invloved in it.

It doesnt add up you paint a picture of a pathetic man in mental turmoil. Yet the affadivait and its contents dont paint the same picture.

Believe what you want, Trevor. But as you haven't read the books, haven't read the articles, have undertaken any investigations into the diary of your own, probably haven't seen, handled, examined the diary itself, haven't met and questioned any of those involved, weren't with the police when they undertook their fraud investigations, and weren't ever up half the night with phone calls from a drunken Mike Barrett, I really don't think you are in much of a position to dispute what I say or, indeed, comment. And frankly, since I know and witnessed that man in his state of mental turmoil, I'm not really much interested whether you think the affidavit paints the picture or not. It's pretty much what happened, is what I witnessed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, all I can suggest is that you acquaint yourself with the facts before forming and expressing opinions. In very simple terms, Mike's life fell apart and he blamed the diary, and fueled by anger and pride and an excess of alcohol, confused and hurt, deserted by his wife and beloved daughter, he thought he might be able to put things right if he got rid of the diary from his life, he therefore confessed to having forged it. The next day, as his emotional pendulum swung the other way, he withdrew his confession. And so it continued in various manifestations, but one thing which generally seems to be agreed on is that he didn't forge it. We'll probably never know for sure.

Well if he didnt forge it, when the heat was put on him why not just say so. Why go to all the trouble of giving such a detailed and intricate explanation, which in my opinion could only have come from someone who was invloved in it.

It doesnt add up you paint a picture of a pathetic man in mental turmoil. Yet the affadivait and its contents dont paint the same picture.

[PaulB]

An admission is worthless if it can be proved that it was made under a promise, an inducement, duress, or a threat.

But it doesnt mean to say that the content of any such admission would be worthless. It may be worthless without a complaint to the police but to researchers who have studied this its vrey relevant in determining when and who did actually write it.

The content of the first affadivit is very detailed in how the diary was forged.

For the police to have been involved someone would have to have made an official complaint in writing. If tthat be the case who did make the complaint and was it made in writing ?

How things sometimes work is i.e

ABC obtain money from DEF by fraud or deception

DEF finds out about the deception or fraud and wants their money back

DEF says to ABC give it back or I will go to the police

ABC duly obliges and pays back DEF

No need for police involvment.

Could this have happened ?

Trevor, all I can suggest is that you acquaint yourself with the facts before forming and expressing opinions. In very simple terms, Mike's life fell apart and he blamed the diary, and fueled by anger and pride and an excess of alcohol, confused and hurt, deserted by his wife and beloved daughter, he thought he might be able to put things right if he got rid of the diary from his life, he therefore confessed to having forged it. The next day, as his emotional pendulum swung the other way, he withdrew his confession. And so it continued in various manifestations, but one thing which generally seems to be agreed on is that he didn't forge it. We'll probably never know for sure.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

An admission is worthless if it can be proved that it was made under a promise, an inducement, duress, or a threat.

But it doesnt mean to say that the content of any such admission would be worthless. It may be worthless without a complaint to the police but to researchers who have studied this its vrey relevant in determining when and who did actually write it.

The content of the first affadivit is very detailed in how the diary was forged.

For the police to have been involved someone would have to have made an official complaint in writing. If tthat be the case who did make the complaint and was it made in writing ?

How things sometimes work is i.e

ABC obtain money from DEF by fraud or deception

DEF finds out about the deception or fraud and wants their money back

DEF says to ABC give it back or I will go to the police

ABC duly obliges and pays back DEF

No need for police involvment.

Could this have happened ?

[The Good Michael]

What makes the diary a good hoax is that there seems to be enough obfuscation of its provenance to allow debate to continue. The scrapbook is, on its own, a silly thing. The writing is melodramatic, overdone, and not really contemporary and seems to be a product of the 1940s-1960s to me, and something manufactured by someone who read pulp fiction. The real inspiration to me for the diary would be HP Lovecraft and his style of using journals and diaries, in melodramatic fashion, to tell a story. Another inspiration might be the copycat tales by Ramsey Campbell. It seems to me that the believers in the text are those who like a good ghost story and not critical analysts.

Mike

[PaulB]

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.

Hi Steve,
Soothsayer is on the button, I'm afraid. Mike's life was rapidly disintegrating and he blamed the diary.

[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

[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.

[Steven Russell]

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

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]

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.

[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