The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

It was "definitely out there" very quickly, yet the diary's chief researcher, Keith Skinner, didn't get wind of it until two years later, and Feldman nowhere mentioned it in his book.
Q.E.D.

This is an excellent example of what I keep warning my dear readers about: you have taken a specific situation (Keith Skinner not knowing about Mike’s foolish affidavit until two years later and Paul Feldman not mentioning it in his book) and applied it as a contradiction to the general situation which is that the affidavit was very much NOT secret at all. As I said in my post, Keith and Shirley were told about it by Anne during the January 18, 1995, interview but neither of them picked up on what she had said. Realising this, she then said no more and I don’t blame her - she immediately realised they weren’t talking about Mike’s affidavit and so she left it there. She thought Keith knew about it (from Shirley) then realised he did not appear to. She was not attempting to hide this fact - she proactively mentioned it.

Rules have to come from the general case not the specific, but you have once again cited the specific in an attempt to deflect from the general.

I can only hope that my dear readers can see what is happening when you do that.

[rjpalmer]

Despite the amount of bullshit written on this thread. The Diary is a fake and is highly likely to have been written by Mike and Anne Barrett.

The poor chap is beyond reach, John. He really deserves our pity rather than our criticism.

It's worth remembering that people like Tom are the victims of a fraud, and our real disdain should be reserved for those who created the hoax and deceived him.

Fraud is a unique crime in some ways, in that the victim will often deny that they have been defrauded (particularly true of the elderly), but whether this is out of embarrassment or shame or naiveté, it is sometime difficult to determine.

[John Wheat]

Despite the amount of bullshit written on this thread. The Diary is a fake and is highly likely to have been written by Mike and Anne Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

So, other than the fact it clearly wasn't secret (it was definitely 'out there' very quickly) and clearly wasn't non-circulating

Author: Caz

08-21-2020, 09:19 AM

Hi Kattrup,

Bottom line is that Shirley and Keith did not get to see Mike's January 5th 1995 affidavit until two years later, in January 1997, when he sent Shirley a copy. This was after a version of it had reached the internet without their knowledge.

---

It was "definitely out there" very quickly, yet the diary's chief researcher, Keith Skinner, didn't get wind of it until two years later, and Feldman nowhere mentioned it in his book.

Q.E.D.

[rjpalmer]

(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)

Sorry Ike, but you have written so much utter nonsense and inaccurate claptrap in your last few posts that I have lost the will to even respond, and if I do respond in the manner it deserves, I'll be breaking the rules of this website in reference to politeness and propriety and I'll find myself, as you so often have found yourself, suspended.

This is no more accurate than your previous claim that Kenneth Rendall [sic] ignored Rod McNeil's ion migration test when in fact he broadcast it far & wide.

It's like a biologist discussing evolutionary theory with an Evangelist from the deep south. The poor chap is beyond reach.

Believe what you wish to believe, Ike, and good luck in convincing the public.

[Iconoclast]

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.

Well, what I believe is that your use of 'What I believe' gives you away - you just don't know. You are surmising, and surmising in a way which permits you to maintain the facade that Anne Graham was involved in the creation of James Maybrick's scrapbook. As you know, I believe that the evidence points towards Anne deflecting the terrible impact of Mike's June 1994 'confession' by pulling the rug from underneath Mike's extraordinary claim. She - more than anyone else alive other than Mike himself - knew whether or not Tony D had given Mike the scrapbook or whether it had suddenly appeared in 12 Goldie Street in early March 1992, so she would know more than anyone else alive whether she could pull the rug out from underneath Mike's 'confession' without him ever producing any evidence to then back it up.

I know what's coming. You're going to say, 'How did Anne know that Mike wouldn't then produce one of the electricians to contradict her claims she had given the scrapbook to Tony D first (to hand on to Mike)?'. Well, the answer to that is that she wouldn't have cared a jot because Mike contradicting her claim by producing the very source of the origin of his ownership of James Maybrick's scrapbook would clearly not have backed up his claims of having hoaxed it - it would have rather obviously backed up the published argument that it was actually James Maybrick's scrapbook, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Anne had grounds to believe that it was indeed authentic (i.e., she knew that it had originally appeared in 12 Goldie Street on or around March 9, 1992).

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.