The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.]

Of course the confession wasn't bogus. But this statement will fall on deaf ears.

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.

[Mike J. G.]

Feldman wouldn't have accepted anything Barrett told him; Feldman had Anne Graham lying to him 24/7 and he was more than capable of denying reality.

What people don't grasp (but becomes obvious when listening to the Barrett/Gray tapes) is that Barrett wanted to be paid for his confession. Barrett wasn't willing to 'give up the goods' for free. Gray was trying to find a newspaper or magazine that would pay for Barrett's exclusive confession.

Also, Mike's January 5, 1992 confessional affidavit was secret and non-circulating. This is a key point that is easily missed. Feldman and Keith Skinner and other researchers would not be aware of it for several years.

Who makes an allegedly 'bogus' confession and then only lodges it with a solicitor? What would be the point? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of a bogus confession?

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.

[John Wheat]

The confession wasn't bogus and no, your explanation is flawed, but I've got better things to do at the moment. I'll get back to you late tonight or at the weekend.

Of course the confession wasn't bogus. But this statement will fall on deaf ears.

[rjpalmer]

Does that answer your question regarding Mike's bogus confession, Sir Rog?

The confession wasn't bogus and no, your explanation is flawed, but I've got better things to do at the moment. I'll get back to you late tonight or at the weekend.

[rjpalmer]

Kenneth Rendall avoided Rod McNeil's awkward evidence that the ink was laid on paper as early as 1909 or as late as 1932. Instead, he focused on the hard evidence of his opinions and basically just didn't like it. Time Warner got seriously burned but Rendall didn't care.

You really have no problem with rewriting history in an inaccurate way, do you Ike?

Kenneth Rendell (the correct spelling) repeatedly shared McNeil's findings with the public!

Where is the "avoidance"??



Returning to reality, it was Robert Smith's own forensic consultant, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh, who raised doubts about the legitimacy of Rod McNeil's experiments, citing insurmountable technical problems and McNeil's inability to adequately explain his methods. If science cannot be replicated, it is not science. Faced with this criticism, McNeil radically changed his estimation to the ink going on paper sometime before 1970.

But hey, if you want to go with McNeil, by all means do so. It means the diary is a clear fake created no earlier than 30 years after Maybrick's death and as late as 1969.

I haven't seen such a spectacular "own goal" since Dan Burns' 56' rocket for Tottenham.

Later, Rendell's team also distanced themselves from McNeil's findings, with Dr. Joe Nickell (the author of two books of document examination) putting more faith in Baxendale's solubility test, stating that the ink was "barely dry on the paper" when Barrett had brought the diary to London in April 1992. Considering that Barrett went shopping for blank Victorian paper in the weeks leading up to April 1992, I'd say Dr. Nickell is correct.

[Iconoclast]

Who makes an allegedly 'bogus' confession and then only lodges it with a solicitor? What would be the point? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of a bogus confession?

Come, come, Sir Roger, you and I both know that that affidavit was sworn at Melvin Harris' request via a persistent Alan I'll-now-do-anything-if-someone-would-just-pay-me Gray. Gray makes this very clear when he tells Barrett whilst he is in hospital in early December that he should make the affidavit and that they "will need all the details" (or words to that effect), thereby giving Mike a full month to prepare his old-gentleman-broken-compass bullshit story).

And what did Harris do with Barrett's long-anticipated 'confession'? What mileage did he make of the details Mike had so 'willingly' coughed-up? Well, I'll tell you, dear readers: he did diddley-squat because he instantly knew it was top-notch bollocks. Tell me it wasn't so, and show me the evidence it wasn't so, and I'll be impressed. The viper Harris got a metaphorical kick in the ghoolies and that was the end of the scrap.

Barrett had not wanted to make that affidavit. In that same hospital conversation with private detective Dimwit Gray he says, "But won't I then get arrested?" (or words to that effect) to which the deeply honourable Gray states to the vulnerable alcoholic, "No, because then you'll be protected" (or words to that effect) - as scurrilous a lie as any PI has ever told to obtain a confession so he can get paid at last. But Barrett - even befuddled - did not fall for that claptrap! And - just for those who wonder why Barrett subsequently appeared to succumb to the pressure to make an affidavit he so self-evidently did not want to make - that is why (I suspect) we got the mercilessly stupid affidavit we got on January 5, 1995: Barrett was basically saying to the world, "Believe this if you dare", and Teflon Barrett could sail off into the sunset having given Harris what he was salivating after for so long without any realistic risk of it coming back to haunt its author.

One of Mike Barrett's cleverer moves, I'd say.

Does that answer your question regarding Mike's bogus confession, Sir Rog?

[rjpalmer]

I do think that if Mike could have thrown some unshakable evidence at Feldman, then he likely would have.

Feldman wouldn't have accepted anything Barrett told him; Feldman had Anne Graham lying to him 24/7 and he was more than capable of denying reality.

What people don't grasp (but becomes obvious when listening to the Barrett/Gray tapes) is that Barrett wanted to be paid for his confession. Barrett wasn't willing to 'give up the goods' for free. Gray was trying to find a newspaper or magazine that would pay for Barrett's exclusive confession.

Also, Mike's January 5, 1992 confessional affidavit was secret and non-circulating. This is a key point that is easily missed. Feldman and Keith Skinner and other researchers would not be aware of it for several years.

Who makes an allegedly 'bogus' confession and then only lodges it with a solicitor? What would be the point? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of a bogus confession?

[jmenges]

I'm sure someone will inform me what the damage is to the top left of the inside front cover, but that's irrelevant because the sort of damage I was referring to was the warping I would have anticipated from soaking the front cover in linseed oil. Now, I'm no oilist - perhaps such a scrapbook would be utterly resistant to damage from so much oil? Do we have anyone who reads these posts who could clarify it for us?

Is it truly possible to soak such a document in oil and leave no trace in the structure of the cover?

I'm happy to live and learn so - if we have any oil-on-old-Victorian-scrapbooks experts out there, please speak up!

The damage isn’t just to the top left of the inside cover. There’s a large splotch of an unknown substance in the center of the inside cover as well as several dribbles scattered around.

JM

[Iconoclast]

I do think that if Mike could have thrown some unshakable evidence at Feldman, then he likely would have.

This is what posters on the site need to reflect deeply upon: in all the long years (32 currently) since Mike Barrett first brought that scrapbook to Rupert Crew Ltd., the only 'evidence' (pah!) that it was a hoax was when Mike Barrett occasionally interspersed his claims of authenticity with claims of inauthenticity.

Dr. Baxendale's 'evidence' was that he found the ink to be more soluble than he would have expected and a year later told The Sunday Times (probably in a fit of pique) that it dissolved in seconds and in his opinion had been laid down in the last 2-3 years (which is remarkable because his various reports to Robert Smith failed to suggest anything more specifically recent than 1945). No other examination of the ink produced any indication that it was more soluble than one might have expected if it had been laid down in 1888 and 1889.

Anne never said a word about a hoax. Nor did Billy. Alan Gray found nothing, therefore Melvin Harris (pink with frustration, no doubt) found nothing (that's the guy who was publishing a book on Jack the Ripper and therefore obviously was entirely objective when he immediately called it a hoax before he saw it).

Kenneth Rendall avoided Rod McNeil's awkward evidence that the ink was laid on paper as early as 1909 or as late as 1932. Instead, he focused on the hard evidence of his opinions and basically just didn't like it. Time Warner got seriously burned but Rendall didn't care.

That's before we start on the Maybrick watch for which there is not a scrap of evidence that those scratches were put there as recently as 1992 - and solid evidence that they very much were not.

It's a pantomime, of course, and like a good pantomime, it comes 'round every year.

But 'unshakable evidence'? Mike had none. Not in front of him, and not behind him.