Tweet
Caz Brown is evidently still endlessly fascinated by my views about the Maybrick Hoax and posed a question over on JTR Forums.
Just for jolly, and having a few idle minutes before the baseball game starts, I thought I'd answer this question, even though it drips with its usual catty humor.
Not unlike Keith Skinner, I prefer to "maximize" my options. Keith has stated that his preferred provenance is the diary having come from underneath the floorboards of Dodd's house (though some might argue this is merely the location of a provenance and not a true provenance) but that his second choice would be the diary having come from a tin box that William "Billy" Graham had supposedly inherited from his step 'ganny' in 1943, with the additional assumption that his step 'ganny' had some connection to a senior servant in the Maybrick houshold. For reasons I've never quite fathomed, he seems to view the possibility of a modern hoax by the Barretts to be remote.
Keith Skinner, 2 - 2 -2018.
"There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories."
I bring up Keith's views merely as a useful counterpunch to my own, and to press upon an apparently skeptical Caz the reasonableness of keeping one's options open using a format that she can appreciate.
So, to answer Caz's question..
Similarly, but perhaps more forcefully, it is my strong belief that Mike Barrett and Anne Graham hoaxed the Diary of Jack the Ripper without the help of anyone, although I hasten to add that I also strongly suspect that Anne Graham was an unwilling participant--a mere victim of her ex-husband's abuse and manipulation. She thought she could control the situation--that Mike would just be 'sent packing' by the literary agent (to use her own phrase)---but this backfired badly, and she was drawn unwillingly into his foolish plot. Tony Devereux, at most, may have discussed the idea of Maybrick-as-Ripper with Barrett--for, as has been discussed many times, Barrett does allude to Devereux being very 'helpful,' and further, there is utterly no reasonable doubt that Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool with its two chapters on the Maybrick case was in Tony's possession by at least July 1991--ie., long before Dodd had the work done on his house in March 1992. That said, when it comes to a hoax Devereux also has the perfect alibi as far as I am concerned: he was dead and buried long before pen ever went to paper.
If it could ever be proven that Anne and Mike were not involved in the diary's creation, which I think is wildly unlikely, I would accept that, but merely 'revert back' to giving some credence to Melvin Harris's original theory which I am hesitant to accept--ie., that Barrett was just the handler of a document forged by others---just as Peter Birchwood was hesitant to accept it when I exchanged messages with him in the early 2000s. I bring up Birchwood--a name that will be unfamiliar to most-- because several weeks ago Caz reposted an ancient relic from the archives--something she scolds others for doing--- suggesting that Birchwood fully accepted Melvin's theory, but if he ever did, it was short-lived based on what he told me in the early 2000s. He saw no reason to expand Keith Skinner's 'nest of forgers' beyond two: Mike and Anne, and I feel the same way--even more so than I did even 5 years ago. I don't know if there is any evidence that Melvin Harris still held the same views he had previously expressed before his sudden and unexpected death, or whether he had gone over to Birchwood's way of thinking.
All of this will be boring and meaningless to anyone who stumbles upon it; I appreciate that this is largely a private matter between Caz and I, but she seemed to want an answer, so here it is.
Not unlike Martin Fido, I give utterly no credence to the idea that the diary can pre-date 1987, nor in my case, even 1992. There is not one jot of evidence that the diary is an old document other than Rod McNeil's "ion migration" analysis which was materially flawed, which he himself drastically revised, and which was rejected even by his own team members. Even the Diary's own forensic expert--Dr. Nick Eastaugh (who believed the diary was a hoax) felt that McNeil could not adequately explain his methods or explain away their technical limitations. Without this, there is nothing to show the diary is an old relic, and much to show that it isn't.
I also accept David Barrat's commentary that the diary contains a number of anachronisms and find the counter explanations for these (a Mr-Bumble-like buffoon, etc.) to be completely incompetent and unconvincing. I don't think any of the diary faithful have a good response to a number of questions he's raised, including the 11 day 'span' that Michael Barrett referred to on a number of occasions over the years--and which Barrett could not have possibly anticipated someone in a remote decade recreating from the available documentation and thus prove plausible.
I hope that satisfies Caz Brown's curiosity. I don't plan on discussing it further with her. Thanks.
Let's play ball!
Originally posted by Caroline Brown
View Post
Not unlike Keith Skinner, I prefer to "maximize" my options. Keith has stated that his preferred provenance is the diary having come from underneath the floorboards of Dodd's house (though some might argue this is merely the location of a provenance and not a true provenance) but that his second choice would be the diary having come from a tin box that William "Billy" Graham had supposedly inherited from his step 'ganny' in 1943, with the additional assumption that his step 'ganny' had some connection to a senior servant in the Maybrick houshold. For reasons I've never quite fathomed, he seems to view the possibility of a modern hoax by the Barretts to be remote.
Keith Skinner, 2 - 2 -2018.
"There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories."
I bring up Keith's views merely as a useful counterpunch to my own, and to press upon an apparently skeptical Caz the reasonableness of keeping one's options open using a format that she can appreciate.
So, to answer Caz's question..
Similarly, but perhaps more forcefully, it is my strong belief that Mike Barrett and Anne Graham hoaxed the Diary of Jack the Ripper without the help of anyone, although I hasten to add that I also strongly suspect that Anne Graham was an unwilling participant--a mere victim of her ex-husband's abuse and manipulation. She thought she could control the situation--that Mike would just be 'sent packing' by the literary agent (to use her own phrase)---but this backfired badly, and she was drawn unwillingly into his foolish plot. Tony Devereux, at most, may have discussed the idea of Maybrick-as-Ripper with Barrett--for, as has been discussed many times, Barrett does allude to Devereux being very 'helpful,' and further, there is utterly no reasonable doubt that Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool with its two chapters on the Maybrick case was in Tony's possession by at least July 1991--ie., long before Dodd had the work done on his house in March 1992. That said, when it comes to a hoax Devereux also has the perfect alibi as far as I am concerned: he was dead and buried long before pen ever went to paper.
If it could ever be proven that Anne and Mike were not involved in the diary's creation, which I think is wildly unlikely, I would accept that, but merely 'revert back' to giving some credence to Melvin Harris's original theory which I am hesitant to accept--ie., that Barrett was just the handler of a document forged by others---just as Peter Birchwood was hesitant to accept it when I exchanged messages with him in the early 2000s. I bring up Birchwood--a name that will be unfamiliar to most-- because several weeks ago Caz reposted an ancient relic from the archives--something she scolds others for doing--- suggesting that Birchwood fully accepted Melvin's theory, but if he ever did, it was short-lived based on what he told me in the early 2000s. He saw no reason to expand Keith Skinner's 'nest of forgers' beyond two: Mike and Anne, and I feel the same way--even more so than I did even 5 years ago. I don't know if there is any evidence that Melvin Harris still held the same views he had previously expressed before his sudden and unexpected death, or whether he had gone over to Birchwood's way of thinking.
All of this will be boring and meaningless to anyone who stumbles upon it; I appreciate that this is largely a private matter between Caz and I, but she seemed to want an answer, so here it is.
Not unlike Martin Fido, I give utterly no credence to the idea that the diary can pre-date 1987, nor in my case, even 1992. There is not one jot of evidence that the diary is an old document other than Rod McNeil's "ion migration" analysis which was materially flawed, which he himself drastically revised, and which was rejected even by his own team members. Even the Diary's own forensic expert--Dr. Nick Eastaugh (who believed the diary was a hoax) felt that McNeil could not adequately explain his methods or explain away their technical limitations. Without this, there is nothing to show the diary is an old relic, and much to show that it isn't.
I also accept David Barrat's commentary that the diary contains a number of anachronisms and find the counter explanations for these (a Mr-Bumble-like buffoon, etc.) to be completely incompetent and unconvincing. I don't think any of the diary faithful have a good response to a number of questions he's raised, including the 11 day 'span' that Michael Barrett referred to on a number of occasions over the years--and which Barrett could not have possibly anticipated someone in a remote decade recreating from the available documentation and thus prove plausible.
I hope that satisfies Caz Brown's curiosity. I don't plan on discussing it further with her. Thanks.
Let's play ball!
Comment