Barrett and the Diary.

[Magpie]

I realize that this has probably been discussed on the old board, but can any of the proponants of the "modern forgery" tell me what the current thinking is concerning Barrett's involvement?

I gather few, if anyone, believes that he actually created the document, but what is the opinion regarding his involvement and/or knowledge of the forgery?

Is there any candidate for the actual forger? Any evidence for when and where it was forged?

Thanks.

[Magpie]

I forgot to ask:

Is the popular feeling that Robert Smith was involved in the creation of the Diary, or merely as a perpetuator of the hoax?

[Ally]

I can't speak for everyone but I'll give you what I *think* the general consensus probably is.

That Michael Barrett is a moron and too stupid to make toast. Therefore, as far as actually creating the diary, he would have been at most a stooge to his wife Anne. While he may have known it was fake, and helped in some small way, he did not "create" it.

I have no idea what the general consensus would be on Robert Smith because I don't think anyone has actually ever come out and said whether they think he is a colluder in the Diary saga other than owning the book and not testing it to destruction as many want.

[Dan Norder]

Barrett isn't particularly bright, but then I also think people overestimate just how much brainpower is necessary to make a hoax, or at least this one. The content of the diary has always struck me as extremely amateurish, as some portions are quite clumsily lifted wholesale from other readily available sources and there's nothing added that would give it the ring of truth. It's like a bad romance novel version of what a Ripper diary would look like. No real thought or creativity went into it, in my opinion. The people finding deep meaning and so forth in it seem to be inventing it up themselves because they want it to be there -- the textual interpretation equivalent of seeing an "FM" in the blood splatters on the wall.

And I think it's safe to say Robert Smith had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the diary, and I wasn't even aware that the possibility that he might have been was ever raised by anyone.

[Victor]

Is the cranshaw(??) quote, and the comment that one of Barrett's books fell open at that page an indication that he may have been involved? Or is this anecdote an invention?

[Graham]

Is the cranshaw(??) quote, and the comment that one of Barrett's books fell open at that page an indication that he may have been involved? Or is this anecdote an invention?

It is possible - I mean, just possible - that Barrett is a person who is fairly well-read but without the ability to convey his thoughts, concepts and ideas to paper. It is possible - again, just possible - that Barret knew of Crashaw and the infamous quote, and decided it was worth using and passed it on to the person who actually wrote the Diary. Which kind of narrows matters down a bit, if there's any basis to this supposition. I think, if it is true, it may well rule out a teenage Australian as the author of the Diary.

But then, I'm only supposing....

Cheers,

Graham

[Victoria]

It is possible - I mean, just possible - that Barrett is a person who is fairly well-read but without the ability to convey his thoughts, concepts and ideas to paper. It is possible - again, just possible - that Barret knew of Crashaw and the infamous quote, and decided it was worth using and passed it on to the person who actually wrote the Diary. Which kind of narrows matters down a bit, if there's any basis to this supposition. I think, if it is true, it may well rule out a teenage Australian as the author of the Diary.

But then, I'm only supposing....

Cheers,

Graham

Anything is possible, it's true .... but I doubt this 'Barrett theory' ...
I prefer the 'teenage liverpool lad' who was brought up in the 60's,
in Australia ..

But then, I'm not supposing .. as it's true.

Victoria

[Graham]

Anything is possible, it's true .... but I doubt this 'Barrett theory' ...
I prefer the 'teenage liverpool lad' who was brought up in the 60's,
in Australia ..

But then, I'm not supposing .. as it's true.

Victoria

Hi Victoria.

The thing is, is it just the merest coincidence that Barrett had an anthology of poems in his possession (I can't remember the name of the book, but it was a Sphere publication) and never denied it, and the presence of a quote by an obscure poet in the Diary? What I was trying to suggest is that it is possible that Barrett conceived the Diary but lacked the skill to write it, and passed to whoever DID write it certain bits and pieces he wanted to be included. And if this is so, then who was the closest person to Barrett who genuinely possessed the skill to write the Diary???

For what it's worth - and it's a tired subject now - if the Diary isn't "Old" then in my view it was produced very shortly before it was 'discovered'. Until the insubstantial Stephen Park is actually located, then I can't think of any other scenario that fits the facts. The problem being that, even if Mike Barrett returned from his self-imposed obscurity, who on earth would believe a word he uttered about the Diary?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victoria]

Hi Graham,

Your points make perfect sense and I could agree with you on
all of it ...

For me though, it is the remembering of a few events from the
past that support the early parts of Steve Powells story...
that Steven Park started the diary .. from my viewpoint, that
is true.

So then, as I know nothing else about this subject ...
I wonder could it be that the diary was put aside for years
either deliberatly, or just through loss of interest, then picked up
again some years later.....
To be finished by 'whoever', one or more people .. maybe or maybe not
including Steven Park.

I just do believe that the 'origins' of the diary rest with 'the
instubstantial Steven Park'.
It makes sense as you say that it was produced very shortly before
it was 'discovered' .. as if you have something 'ready to go' it would be
hard to sit on it when it had $ potential.

Victoria

[Graham]

Hi Victoria,

If we assume that the Diary was produced by the insubstantial Stephen Park at some point prior to when Michael Barrett first contacted Doreen Montgomery, then it has to be that the Diary found its way from Australia to England by some means or the other - Anne Graham, if you will. Then I really do find it quite astonishing and amazingly coincidental that Mike Barrett had in his possession a book containing a poem by the obscure poet Richard Crashaw a quote from which was reproduced in the Diary. If it had been a quote from, say, Coleridge or Tennyson or W S Gilbert, then yes, fair enough; but Crashaw? It kind of stretches one's credulity.

Unless...was that Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem the possession of Anne Graham in the first place...? Was the edition of that Sphere book published before or after Anne Graham was in Australia?

Graham

[Omlor]

After.

In fact, not long before the diary first appeared.

Right around the time, in fact, when the police list of Eddowes' belongings (which the diary cites not once, not twice, but three separate times) becomes available to the public.

And after the Poste House becomes the Poste House.

Amazing, huh?

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,

--John

[Victoria]

Hi Victoria,

If we assume that the Diary was produced by the insubstantial Stephen Park at some point prior to when Michael Barrett first contacted Doreen Montgomery, then it has to be that the Diary found its way from Australia to England by some means or the other - Anne Graham, if you will. Then I really do find it quite astonishing and amazingly coincidental that Mike Barrett had in his possession a book containing a poem by the obscure poet Richard Crashaw a quote from which was reproduced in the Diary. If it had been a quote from, say, Coleridge or Tennyson or W S Gilbert, then yes, fair enough; but Crashaw? It kind of stretches one's credulity.

Unless...was that Sphere book containing the Crashaw poem the possession of Anne Graham in the first place...? Was the edition of that Sphere book published before or after Anne Graham was in Australia?

Graham

Hi Graham,

I find your scenario here quite credible .. a lot stranger things do happen.
From what I read here Crashaw would not appear to be Mikes 'cup of tea',
so it is possible for Anne to be involved for that part, or, some other party ...
Steven Park may well have travelled to England at some point .. he is English.
Re the book .. we do have a lot of second hand and antiquarian book shops
here, also if the book was not published here by Annes' Australian dates ..
she may have bought a copy with her .. maybe it was her 'cup of tea'.
Or Steven may have found it in a second hand book shop.
My personal view still stands that the origins of the diary are from Steven Park, and I feel it continued with others.
I also feel that the truth of all this will come out, and probably in the not too distant future.

all the best Graham,
Victoria

[Christine]

Well, if the poems were "not his cup of tea" doesn't that make it more likely that he would have gone to a shop and looked through some old books until he found something he liked, without bothering to find out whether or not his choice was obscure?

[Omlor]

Christine,

Not only that. Mike Barrett was the only person able to tell everyone where that specific line could be found excerpted and cited in another modern source as it was in the diary. Only Mike was able to do that. That's the same Mike who first gave everyone the fake diary without any reliable or verifiable provenance whatsoever. Only he could identify for everyone a source for the single cited line (despite having allegedly only five words he'd supposedly never seen before out of all the words ever written in English to go on, two of which were "O" and "of"). So basically Mike gets handed three meaningful words (costly intercourse death) and out of the entire history of writing only he is mysteriously able to tell everyone precisely where those very words can be found excerpted and cited like in his diary -- a source dated to the 1980s, yes around the same time as the Ripper centenary and the Maybrick case centenary with all its accompanying press and yes, that's right, also around the very same time as the police list the diary cites three separate times first becomes available to the public and after the Poste House (named exactly and precisely in the book) first becomes the Poste House and yes, not long before the diary itself first appears.

A truly remarkable set of amazing coincidences. Unless...

And not only was Mike (the same Mike who first produced the dodgy book for everyone to see) the only person able to tell everyone where the quote could be found; but to this day no one has ever offered a remotely believable explanation for how he knew such a thing.

Unless, of course, one is willing to believe a miracle story Mike told amidst a whole slew of outright lies.

But surely no one would be so stupid and gullible as to do that, would they?

Then again, this is Diary World. so I suppose there might still be some out there...

Strange, but all true,

--John

PS: On the bright side, at least this give us a chance to laugh once again at the obvious silliness of this whole Diary affair. Meanwhile, IKJ and Steve Powell and Keith Skinner all still sit on their claims of super secret evidence that would prove the origin of the book but they still never produce the goods, any of them, and neither the watch nor the diary is given to scientific experts so that they might at least be allowed to examine it and determine for themselves what we might learn using today's scientific technology. And the years go by. And the cheap little game goes on.

[Victoria]

Well, if the poems were "not his cup of tea" doesn't that make it more likely that he would have gone to a shop and looked through some old books until he found something he liked, without bothering to find out whether or not his choice was obscure?

Christine,
By what I said .. "as Crashaw was probably 'not his cup of tea", I was
implying that he was most likely not the only person responsible for
producing this hoax diary.
Now John has said that he knew the exact page etc etc .. I find that
a bit unusual, I have favourite quotes but I could not tell you an exact
page number etc .. I'm sure most people are the same.
That exact remembering could well be someone with something to hide ..
ie 'have to remember because I wrote it .. it all came from me' getting the story right,
type of thing.

Victoria