The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[erobitha]

The most ill-informed post here!


The Baron

He's right.

[John Wheat]

Slightly less amusing one-liners for the reader's benefit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYznB09WukM

You might want to try living in the real World. Where Maybrick was not the Ripper and the Barretts wrote the diary.

[The Baron]

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts

The most ill-informed post here!


The Baron

[erobitha]

Ridiculous post. The Barretts wrote the diary end of.

Slightly less amusing one-liners for the reader's benefit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYznB09WukM

[John Wheat]

Hmmm, a published author now was he?

I've never said that Mike Barrett couldn't have written the Diary. Of course he could. So could any adult alive between 1888 and 1993. I simply stated that there's no credible evidence that Mike wrote it, and that (unlike your posts) is a fact. Even when Mike tried to prove that he wrote it, he couldn't. Even when Mike hired a private investigator to prove he wrote it, he still couldn't. That to me suggests that in all probability, he didn't write it. But he could have, and I acknowledge that, because I deal in facts, whereas you post opinions and sell them as facts. I think it's important that some of us on here stick to repeating those facts, otherwise casual visitors to the Maybrick threads on these message boards might mistake the kind of ill-informed posts by the likes of you and Fishy and as God's honest truth.

Ridiculous post. The Barretts wrote the diary end of.

[StevenOwl]

Because Mike Barret a published author who claimed to have written the diary would be the last person who could have written the diary. Get real.

Hmmm, a published author now was he?

I've never said that Mike Barrett couldn't have written the Diary. Of course he could. So could any adult alive between 1888 and 1993. I simply stated that there's no credible evidence that Mike wrote it, and that (unlike your posts) is a fact. Even when Mike tried to prove that he wrote it, he couldn't. Even when Mike hired a private investigator to prove he wrote it, he still couldn't. That to me suggests that in all probability, he didn't write it. But he could have, and I acknowledge that, because I deal in facts, whereas you post opinions and sell them as facts. I think it's important that some of us on here stick to repeating those facts, otherwise casual visitors to the Maybrick threads on these message boards might mistake the kind of ill-informed posts by the likes of you and Fishy and as God's honest truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

First of all, I don't consider myself to be one of 'the diary faithful', whatever that means, unless it's just the polar opposite of 'the Barrett and Barrat faithful', who seem to actually believe that the diary was physically created by the Barretts over 11 days, between 1st and 13th April 1992, as opposed to being 'transcribed' during that interval, from scrapbook to word processor, so that Mike could take both documents to London with him and impress everyone with a good job done on the transcript.

There is no evidence for the scrapbook being obtained as late as 31st March 1992, or that it came from any auction sale, and the whole idea is not transformed from highly implausible to 'plausible', let alone provable or in any way proved, merely by the existence of the little red 1891 diary and the specifications it represents.

As Mike was in the habit of doing, he tended to base his tall stories about the diary on actual events, adapting the dates and details to whatever advantage he was seeking to gain at the time. So a live electrician living on Fountains Road in 1992 became a deceased friend living there until August 1991, so Mike could explain how he came to have Jack the Ripper's "diary" in his possession. The transcript that was prepared from the diary for its debut in London on 13th April 1992 became, in January 1995, the draft that was handwritten into the scrapbook by the wife who had deserted him the year before and had just divorced him. But even Mike knew that if he claimed this was not done until early April 1992, when he had already begun making arrangements with Doreen to bring both the diary and the transcript to London, it would simply not be credible, so he wisely backdated the process to January 1990 in his affidavit, apparently altering the year on the draft version to 1991 at a later date - probably when he realised his mistake that Devereux had died that year, and not in 1990.

Hi Caz,

I was in Brighton on Wednesday, I could have popped in for a cup of tea and said hello to Monty.

[John Wheat]

You're bang-on there ero of course. I'm happy to take on board ALL opinions and arguments pertaining to the Diary being a hoax, providing they're well-researched, well informed, and well thought out. Quite frankly, "Bongo must have written it coz he said he did" is the most risible stance a Naysayer can take, and it tells me straight away that person has absolutely nothing to offer the discussion.

Because Mike Barret a published author who claimed to have written the diary would be the last person who could have written the diary. Get real.

[John Wheat]

I said CREDIBLE evidence - Barrett claimed to have written it, and yet he consistently failed to prove that he did, even with the help of a professional private investigator. And I know there's no credible evidence that Maybrick wrote it either - I don't believe he did. The simple fact is that we don't know who wrote it, and your frequent ill-informed posts on all Maybrick threads do nothing to further the discussion.

Not sure how I can be ill informed when I'm correct.

[StevenOwl]

They are only interested in Mike Barrett’s word being gospel when it suits their argument. They ignore when under oath he swore blind Tony D gave it to him. They forget his later recanting too. Apparently Mike’s word is absolute and true and in that one specific period in time. Just as he is divorcing his wife and loses contact with his daughter.

Yeah sure, Mike wrote it.

You're bang-on there ero of course. I'm happy to take on board ALL opinions and arguments pertaining to the Diary being a hoax, providing they're well-researched, well informed, and well thought out. Quite frankly, "Bongo must have written it coz he said he did" is the most risible stance a Naysayer can take, and it tells me straight away that person has absolutely nothing to offer the discussion.

[erobitha]

And just another thought - if MB's word is good enough for you with absolutely nothing to back it up (and it seems as though it is), then why do you not believe him when he changes his mind and reverts to the stance of the Diary coming to him via Devereux in 1992, which is actually the position he held for the vast majority of the time from 1993 until his death?

They are only interested in Mike Barrett’s word being gospel when it suits their argument. They ignore when under oath he swore blind Tony D gave it to him. They forget his later recanting too. Apparently Mike’s word is absolute and true and in that one specific period in time. Just as he is divorcing his wife and loses contact with his daughter.

Yeah sure, Mike wrote it.

[StevenOwl]

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

And just another thought - if MB's word is good enough for you with absolutely nothing to back it up (and it seems as though it is), then why do you not believe him when he changes his mind and reverts to the stance of the Diary coming to him via Devereux in 1992, which is actually the position he held for the vast majority of the time from 1993 until his death?

[StevenOwl]

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

I said CREDIBLE evidence - Barrett claimed to have written it, and yet he consistently failed to prove that he did, even with the help of a professional private investigator. And I know there's no credible evidence that Maybrick wrote it either - I don't believe he did. The simple fact is that we don't know who wrote it, and your frequent ill-informed posts on all Maybrick threads do nothing to further the discussion.

[John Wheat]

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts folks. I think it's important to keep reminding people of that.

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts folks. I think it's important to keep reminding people of that.

Hi Owly,

You are spot-on, mate. The only 'evidence' (other than the desperate whimsy of certain commentators) is that Mike Barrett claimed to have created the text of the scrapbook. If he had, he would have needed a vehicle to write it into which provides a nailed-on opportunity to prove his own claim: he claimed to have created the text and he claimed he wrote it into a Victorian scrapbook which he claimed he purchased from an auction at O&L which Lord Orsam claimed must have happened on March 31, 1992.

Here's the rub, though. Mike Barrett claimed at the C&D Club meeting of April 1999 that he had the receipt for the scrapbook in his pocket. Of course, producing this receipt would have stopped the 'hoax' dead in its tracks - whether in 1999 or in 1992 or any other year whatsoever. Of course, he had to take a different course. Of course, he didn't produce it. Of course, he had no intention of producing it. Of course, he could not produce it because he didn't have a receipt in the first place.

How do we know with some reasonable certainty that he didn't have one? Well, because he also didn't produce it in June 1994 when he first claimed he had created the text and wrote it into the scrapbook; and then he didn't produce it in January 1995 when he second claimed he had created the text and wrote it into the scrapbook; nor did he provide it to his private detective lapdog Alan Gray despite many requests from the latter for the evidence he could use to destroy the 'hoax' Barrett was claiming to Gray he had created.

So there is absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever (other than the desperate whimsy of certain commentators) that the text in the Victorian scrapbook was created by the brilliant, creative mind of Mike Barrett nor indeed by that of his arch-fiend sidekick and erstwhile wife, Anne Graham.

Our dear readers should caution themselves every time they see stupidities such as Wheat's cut-and-paste one-liners: it simply isn't as simple as it looks!

PS Do you think he actually types those one-liners out each time or do you think he just cuts and pastes them out of a Word document he keeps on his Desktop?

Ike