The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

Mike definitely never wrote any of it, and I honestly don't think Anne did, either. Maybrick certainly didn't. Whether Mike's confession was 100% genuine is up for debate, in my opinion.

I think your largely wrong. I think Mike and cooked up the diary between them.

[Mike J. G.]

I think your largely wrong. I think Mike and cooked up the diary between them.

I could be wrong, John. We can't really ignore the fact that the handwriting is neither Mike's nor Anne's, though.

Whether Mike and Anne were involved is anyone's guess, but Mike was the one who brought the diary into the public eye, so I feel he had some sort of involvement... but to what extent, I can't say.

[John Wheat]

I could be wrong, John. We can't really ignore the fact that the handwriting is neither Mike's nor Anne's, though.

Whether Mike and Anne were involved is anyone's guess, but Mike was the one who brought the diary into the public eye, so I feel he had some sort of involvement... but to what extent, I can't say.

Fair enough Mike.

[rjpalmer]

Hi, RJ.

I tend to think that if Mike could stick it to Feldman and Anne, then he'd have jumped at the opportunity, especially when on one of his drunken tirades.

I certainly don't doubt that Mike was wanting to make a bit of moolah from any "confession," but I still feel that he'd have came up with the goods at some point, but he never really did.

I do feel that he was involved to some extent, but I don't feel that he, nor Anne, actually penned any of it.

I think the facts show otherwise, Mike, and unfortunately your argument is the same one formulated by Paul Begg on this forum over twenty years ago--that "Mike hated Feldman" and his allegedly bogus confession was just a way to ruin Feldman's project.

It doesn't compute.

Here's how Keith Skinner explained it back on January 15, 2018:

“Mike Barrett hated Paul Feldman. Blamed him for everything that had gone wrong in his life since the day Paul became involved with the project. The collapse of his marriage to Anne. Taking his daughter away from him. Hounding him day and night to confirm his (Paul’s) theory that he (Mike) and Anne had been given new identities by the Government. Paul Begg has frequently stated, privately and publicly, that Barrett would have done anything to have destroyed Feldman. Mike conclusively proving the diary to be a modern hoax which he created would have done just that.”

As I say, the trouble with Keith and Paul's theory is that it doesn't fit the facts.

When Barrett made his drunken confession to faking the Diary in late June 1994 (to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post) Mike had no reason to hate Feldman. Indeed, Feldman stood to make Mike a lot of money. Mike and his lawyer both quickly retracted this drunken confession and Mike went into rehab.

Significantly, Feldman barely knew Anne at this point, so jealousy doesn't enter the picture. They were practically strangers. Feldman and Anne wouldn't become friendly, and Anne wouldn't join Feldman's team, until a month later, after a meeting in the bar of the old Moat House Hotel on July 23, 1994. (See Inside Story, p 105-107)

So, the chronology doesn't work.

Now hold the phone, I hear you say. Immediately after this Anne did become friendly with Feldman and joined his team. We are told Feldman even paid her a weekly allowance. So Mike could indeed have become jealous after July 1994.

There's just one problem. Mike's secret confessional non-circulating confession was never made public. If he hated Feldman why not circulate it? Why not shout it from the rooftops.

Here's the deal.

Nine months later, on September 13 and September 1995 Mike Barrett appeared on BBC Radio Merseyside with Bob Azurdia in front an audience of hundreds.

Here was Mike's big chance to "stick it to Feldman."

Here was Mike's big chance to reveal his confession to a live audience.

Mike could tell how he had sought out a blank Victorian diary in the weeks before coming to London. He could have revealed the author of the mysterious 'O Costly Intercourse' quote in the diary. He could have struck a savage blow against Feldman and Anne by naming her as the penmen. He could have at least tried.

Did he?

Did he heck.

Barrett instead defended the diary with more eloquence and eagerness than Tom "Iconoclast" Mitchell, denying his early confession to Brough, citing Shirley Harison chapter & verse, boasting how the diary was genuine and had passed all the ink and paper tests him flying cover. He was certain Maybrick was the Ripper. Feldman must have beamed from ear to ear.

Bob Azurdia had even caught wind (from Melvin Harris, evidently) of Mike secret confessional affidavit and asked him about it.

Barrett denied it even existed!!

Strange behavior for a man who wanted to 'stick it to Feldman'!!

You can hear Barrett's interviews here, Post #9

Rippercast Audio Archives: The Maybrick Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[rjpalmer]

I could be wrong, John. We can't really ignore the fact that the handwriting is neither Mike's nor Anne's, though.

According to who, Mike?

No accredited handwriting analysist has ever compared Anne's handwriting to the diary. There was a call for this to be done over twenty years ago (including by Keith Skinner) and to this day it has never been done.

It's just amateur opinion and guesswork that the handwriting isn't Anne's.

I agree that the slant and the overall appearance do not look the same, but there are some weird similarities in how individual letters are formed.

if you're interested, you might want to read this thread. I'm particularly struck by the weird M with the lopsided humps, and how both Anne and the Diarist write word 'for' as fr.

Diary Handwriting - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Mike J. G.]

I think the facts show otherwise, Mike, and unfortunately your argument is the same one formulated by Paul Begg on this forum over twenty years ago--that "Mike hated Feldman" and his allegedly bogus confession was just a way to ruin Feldman's project.

It doesn't compute.

Here's how Keith Skinner explained it back on January 15, 2018:

“Mike Barrett hated Paul Feldman. Blamed him for everything that had gone wrong in his life since the day Paul became involved with the project. The collapse of his marriage to Anne. Taking his daughter away from him. Hounding him day and night to confirm his (Paul’s) theory that he (Mike) and Anne had been given new identities by the Government. Paul Begg has frequently stated, privately and publicly, that Barrett would have done anything to have destroyed Feldman. Mike conclusively proving the diary to be a modern hoax which he created would have done just that.”

As I say, the trouble with Keith and Paul's theory is that it doesn't fit the facts.

When Barrett made his drunken confession to faking the Diary in late June 1994 (to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post) Mike had no reason to hate Feldman. Indeed, Feldman stood to make Mike a lot of money. Mike and his lawyer both quickly retracted this drunken confession and Mike went into rehab.

Significantly, Feldman barely knew Anne at this point, so jealousy doesn't enter the picture. They were practically strangers. Feldman and Anne wouldn't become friendly, and Anne wouldn't join Feldman's team, until a month later, after a meeting in the bar of the old Moat House Hotel on July 23, 1994. (See Inside Story, p 105-107)

So, the chronology doesn't work.

Now hold the phone, I hear you say. Immediately after this Anne did become friendly with Feldman and joined his team. We are told Feldman even paid her a weekly allowance. So Mike could indeed have become jealous after July 1994.

There's just one problem. Mike's secret confessional non-circulating confession was never made public. If he hated Feldman why not circulate it? Why not shout it from the rooftops.

Here's the deal.

Nine months later, on September 13 and September 1995 Mike Barrett appeared on BBC Radio Merseyside with Bob Azurdia in front an audience of hundreds.

Here was Mike's big chance to "stick it to Feldman."

Here was Mike's big chance to reveal his confession to a live audience.

Mike could tell how he had sought out a blank Victorian diary in the weeks before coming to London. He could have revealed the author of the mysterious 'O Costly Intercourse' quote in the diary. He could have struck a savage blow against Feldman and Anne by naming her as the penmen. He could have at least tried.

Did he?

Did he heck.

Barrett instead defended the diary with more eloquence and eagerness than Tom "Iconoclast" Mitchell, denying his early confession to Brough, citing Shirley Harison chapter & verse, boasting how the diary was genuine and had passed all the ink and paper tests him flying cover. He was certain Maybrick was the Ripper. Feldman must have beamed from ear to ear.

Bob Azurdia had even caught wind (from Melvin Harris, evidently) of Mike secret confessional affidavit and asked him about it.

Barrett denied it even existed!!

Strange behavior for a man who wanted to 'stick it to Feldman'!!

You can hear Barrett's interviews here, Post #9

Rippercast Audio Archives: The Maybrick Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

I don't necessarily believe that Mike hated Feldman, "hate" is a strong word. But I still believe that if Mike could conclusively rubbish Feldman's theories and make him look like a knobhead then that's what he'd have done. If Paul Begg still believes that, and last I heard, he does, then I'm in good company, lol. Just my own opinion, anyway.

I have listened to those interviews, I even remember my dad listening to them when they aired. I've recently gone back and listened to Anne's, and her act wasn't too convincing.

[Mike J. G.]

According to who, Mike?

No accredited handwriting analysist has ever compared Anne's handwriting to the diary. There was a call for this to be done over twenty years ago (including by Keith Skinner) and to this day it has never been done.

It's just amateur opinion and guesswork that the handwriting isn't Anne's.

I agree that the slant and the overall appearance do not look the same, but there are some weird similarities in how individual letters are formed.

if you're interested, you might want to read this thread. I'm particularly struck by the weird M with the lopsided humps, and how both Anne and the Diarist write word 'for' as fr.

Diary Handwriting - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Mainly my own thoughts, Roger.

There are some interesting similarities there between Anne's handwriting on that note, and the handwriting in the scrapbook. That being said, what about Mike? If we give the benefit of the doubt to Anne having written it, where does that leave Mike?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he couldn't have come up with the idea, or did a little research, but didn't he claim at one point that he wrote some and Anne wrote some?

He did claim that Anne had penned it with his dictation, but I'd be more inclined to believe that she wrote it of her own accord, if she did indeed write it.

As you all know, I believe the "diary" is a hoax, and my original thought was that, Occam's Razor and all, it was a Mike Barrett and Anne Graham creation, so I'm not closed minded to that theory today, but I have been more open to the idea that it wasn't necessarily their work, as I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is Chris Jones's opinion also.

Like I said on another day, though, we'll never really know for sure, unfortunately, which is why we're still here waffling on about it.

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

... didn't he claim at one point that he wrote some and Anne wrote some?

November 5, 1994
Michael Barrett and Alan Gray
A thought crosses AG's mind. ‘You said Anne did it. You're still saying it’s all her handwriting?
MB: ‘It’s 50/50’. It appears they did a bit each [Ike: contrary to anything Barrett had ever previously claimed].

He did claim that Anne had penned it with his dictation ...

This is why Mike Barrett is the gift that keeps on giving to those who believe he had any involvement whatsoever in the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook: he literally said whatever worked for him in the moment he said it and by the time sufficient time had passed, he'd effectively given us every possible version of what might have happened which means his testimony is contradicted time and time again.

Which is why you should not trust a word he ever uttered.

[rjpalmer]

As you all know, I believe the "diary" is a hoax, and my original thought was that, Occam's Razor and all, it was a Mike Barrett and Anne Graham creation, so I'm not closed minded to that theory today, but I have been more open to the idea that it wasn't necessarily their work, as I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is Chris Jones's opinion also.

Hi Mike

Chris Jones, when I talked to him briefly, was very guarded about his suspicions, but I never got that impression at all. I could be completely wrong, but I rather thought that he suspected Anne Graham, though he by no means ever said so directly.

Here is what he has written about Mike Barrett at this website, describing a long meeting he had with Mike at Christmas 2007.

"He showed [me] some pages of a book he had written based on the Ripper murders. It was clear from the numerous spelling and grammatical errors contained in the text that Barrett did not have the necessary literary skills to have personally written the Diary. Nevertheless, his obvious intelligence and vivid imagination, did suggest the possibility that while he may not have personally penned the document, he could have worked with another person(s) to have collectively produced it."

Whereas the Diary-friendly people uniformly portray Barrett as a 'mental vegetable' (their words) utterly incapable, Jones allows Barrett enough intelligence and imagination to come up with the concept, the plotting, etc. But Mike would have needed a collaborator.

In my opinion, Mike had one: Anne Graham. I can see no other rational explanation for Anne's extraordinary behavior in 1994-2001 other than she had been involved in the hoax. If she hadn't been involved, she would have gladly thrown Barrett under the bus. Barrett, by contrast, had no job and little or no income and was divorcing the family's breadwinner. That complicates your idea that Barrett would have destroyed Feldman if he could: the diary was Mike's income, his lifeline.

I really don't understand why anyone feels the need to look elsewhere. There are two liars in our saga: Mike and Anne. There are also two writers in our saga: Mike and Anne. They clearly purchased a word processor in April 1986 to pursue a writing career and it was immediately after this that Mike's interviews and articles began appearing in at least two national magazines. Anne admits she helped Mike in this career, and Mike belonged to a "writer's circle."

Later, Anne joined the Diary's team and Martin Fido was impressed by her talent. She went on to co-write a book on Florence Maybrick (the introduction is attributed solely to her) and was said to have been working on a second book about Victorian crime.

Occam's Razor indeed. The simplest explanation is that Mike and Anne wrote the diary without any help, and I think they would have been entirely capable.

Other theorists introduce Tony Devereux, Billy Graham, Gerard Kane, and other non-writers into the mix, but this strikes me as totally unnecessary and pointless.

We'll have to agree to disagree, for I think there are only two suspects: Mike and Anne. And Mike is the one that went shopping for blank Victorian paper.

I no longer see it as even a mystery. Just a waiting game.

Cheers.

Home | Maybrick 1 (jamesmaybrick.com)

[rjpalmer]

Which is why you should not trust a word he ever uttered.

Hi Ike.

What you are up against is that this tiresome trope has no feet.

No one who believes the diary is a modern fake believes Barrett was trustworthy---some of us even suspect Mike had a personality disorder.

Yet--that is just the sort of bloke who would be brash enough to fake the Diary of Jack the Ripper and have enough gall to try and pawn it off in London. An unhinged pathological liar.


Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995 is a different kettle of fish because it was not meant for public consumption. It was secret and non-circulating.

It was also compiled by Alan Gray who tried his best to independently corroborate its statements and weed out Mike's obvious confabulations.

I ask you the same question that I asked Mike G.

Who makes a bogus confession and then doesn't circulate it, but only lodges it with a solicitor?

Where is there a single example of any false confessor doing such a thing? What's the point of making a bogus confession only to keep it secret?

It's very common for people going through an ugly divorce to 'dish' on one's spouse. Especially when there are children involved. One sees it all the time in the papers. It's called leverage.

I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago where this happened. The couple was divorcing, and she wanted sole custody. So, she threatened to reveal their dirty secret: that he had been a drug pusher for years. He ended up killer her, unfortunately. What I believe is that in Anne's case, she knew Barrett was on the verge of spilling the beans, so she pulled the rug from underneath him by inventing the "in the family" provenance and coaching her elderly father to support her story. You still haven't explained her extraordinary behavior, yet you must also surely believe she was lying to those around her.

I think your friend David 'Orsam' has it right. Mike's secret confessional affidavit was blackmail against Anne Graham. That, and a secondary motive of Gray trying to peddle the exclusive rights to Mike's confession.

But there's little market for a confession to having perpetrated a hoax, though there's always a market for a Jack the Ripper solution.

Those who pulled some of the 'Sasquatch' or 'Bigfoot' hoaxes found this out. When they claimed they saw/photographed the monster, they had a huge audience. When they went to confess years later, nearly no one cared or wanted to hear it.

Cheers.

[Scott Nelson]

Oh well, I guess the Harry Dam/George Grossmith/Michael Maybrick theory will just have to simmer for a while until someone turns up the heat.

[Iconoclast]

Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995 is a different kettle of fish because it was not meant for public consumption. It was secret and non-circulating.
Cheers.

Yes, absolutely, couldn't agree more, Fort Knox locks its doors and none shall pass, et cetera - other than that tiny little detail where Alan Gray types the document, Melvin Harris gets a copy of Gray's copy, and Anne Graham gets a copy posted through her letterbox (and mentions it when interviewed by Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner et alia in that very flat on January 18, 1995 - a comment made en passant which no-one picked-up on), that affidavit was utterly 'secret and non-circulating'.

So, other than the fact it clearly wasn't secret (it was definitely 'out there' very quickly) and clearly wasn't non-circulating (it wasn't in the The Sunday Times, granted, but that's because even they could not be that gullible a fourth time), you've hit the nail on the head, RJ. Yet another 'final nail in the coffin', as it were!

As a matter of interest, what - given the above - would non-secret have looked like and what - given the above - would circulating have looked like? Feel free to factor in to your answer the bit where everyone knows deep down (if not on the surface) that every word of that affidavit was pure mince.

[Iconoclast]

Oh well, I guess the Harry Dam/George Grossmith/Michael Maybrick theory will just have to simmer for a while until someone turns up the heat.

Hey, Scotty, what happened to the five things you find most troublesome about James Mybrick's scrapbook?

[Iconoclast]

Who makes a bogus confession and then doesn't circulate it, but only lodges it with a solicitor?

I answered this question a few posts back (#595).

Who makes a bogus confession and then doesn't circulate it, but only lodges it with a solicitor?

I answered this question a few posts back (#612).

What's the point of making a bogus confession only to keep it secret?

The clue is in the question, RJ, if you would stop for a moment and think about it. It was a 'bogus confession' which Mike had little interest in making, and far less in circulating. It served its purpose - it kept Alan Gray on the hook. Do any of us here seriously think that if the gullible Sunday Times came along subsequently offering Mike £3 million for a confession, he would not have been perfectly happy to whip out the January 5 nonsense and claim the money? Mike Barrett - amongst many other less admirable qualities - was nothing if not a pragmatist: he did what he did and he said what he said and he claimed what he claimed whenever it simply suited him to do so. This is why - in his head - it was perfectly normal to contradict oneself in the space of a capital letter and a full stop and not feel a moment's embarrassment. "I wrote the diary, in my hand, Anne did half of it, Tony did the other three-quarters, I did none of it, it is genuinely James Maybrick's diary."

[Iconoclast]

I think your friend David 'Orsam' has it right. Mike's secret confessional affidavit was blackmail against Anne Graham. That, and a secondary motive of Gray trying to peddle the exclusive rights to Mike's confession.

Well the latter bit hardly makes it 'secret', then, does it, RJ?

Make your mind up, the two of you.