The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Mike J. G.]

This is a point I have made before regarding Mike's facile January 5, 1995 affidavit. If he had genuinely had any sort of role to play in the creation of the scrapbook and the text, his affidavit would not have been the nebulous, unprovable, slightly unhinged (the linseed oil!) version that we got. It reads like a man who had no idea whatsoever how the scrapbook ended up in his hands (or he didn't want to confess what he really knew about how it ended up in his hands) and was simply humouring Mishter Gray who wanted to humour Mishter Harriz.

The linseed oil and drying the scrapbook in the oven without any apparent damage to it occurring or any lingering evidence of his having done so is - as I say - the apex of his unhinged tale.

Monday, April 13, 1992
Shirley Harrison: "Is it me or is there one hell of a whiff of linseed oil in the room?"
Mike [thinks]: "Damn, I knew I should have used extra virgin olive oil".

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

[rjpalmer]

I'm sure someone will inform me what the damage is to the top left of the inside front cover, but that's irrelevant

I can't agree that it is 'irrelevant,' Ike.

Barrett, a man that would tell six different versions of the same event before he had had his morning shave, described removing a "maker's stamp" from the inside front cover.

I can't recall that any photograph of the inside front cover has ever been made available to the public, but from what we see in the image below there does appear to be quite extensive (and strangely dark) damage in the location indicated by Barrett, and it would be interesting to know what, if any, forensic examination has been conducted on this damaged area. The brown patch could conceivable be glue, but what on earth is all that black staining?

You'll no doubt recall that Dr. Baxendale and others noticed a rectangular impression on the flyleaf of the photo album consistent with the size of photographs that were popular between World War I and World War II, and I believe one can just barely make out this faint rectangle (marked in red) on the flyleaf.

But what the nasty stain on the endpaper/inside cover represents (indicated by the blue arrows) has never, to my recollection, been explained.

It's hard to understand why James Maybrick or a contemporary hoaxer would remove something from the cover--why would they bother?--- but one can readily imagine the necessity of a modern hoaxer to do so. If it indicated the maker of the photo album the company could be traced, and this would help in determining its age. As would a pasted-on sticker that indicated, say "Laurence Smith, 212 Oak Drive, Wallasey," which would help trace the previous owner.

I view this damage and staining with curiosity and not a little suspicion.

Linseed oil is the same as flaxseed oil. There are grades of it that are nearly odorless.

[Iconoclast]

What is this?

Well, I don't know what it is, RJ, but I'm confident (though not certain) of what it's not. Let us remind ourselves of what Barrett claimed:

When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.

Now, he was very explicit about having soaked the whole of the front cover in linseed oil and that it had taken two days to dry out (it must have been seriously soaked) - even needing to effectively bake it in the oven - but we see no after effects of such a process.

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!

[rjpalmer]

The linseed oil and drying the scrapbook in the oven without any apparent damage to it occurring or any lingering evidence of his having done so is - as I say - the apex of his unhinged tale.

What is this?

[rjpalmer]

I can hear the police sirens now tearing down Anne's street in January 1995 with a Black Maria packed with indignant polis seeking to right the terrible wrongs of a woman who had committed the unforgivable crime of the century the day she married MJB.

You're the one who believes Anne is a pathological liar, Ike.

It's right there in your own theory.

According to your own theory, after Anne joined Feldman's team in 1994 (and despite having been 'free and clear' of Barrett for months) she spent the next eight years lying to everyone around her about the diary and must have even coached her own elderly father to lie to them, too.

[Iconoclast]

I do think that if Mike penned it, and could prove it, then he would have done so.

This is a point I have made before regarding Mike's facile January 5, 1995 affidavit. If he had genuinely had any sort of role to play in the creation of the scrapbook and the text, his affidavit would not have been the nebulous, unprovable, slightly unhinged (the linseed oil!) version that we got. It reads like a man who had no idea whatsoever how the scrapbook ended up in his hands (or he didn't want to confess what he really knew about how it ended up in his hands) and was simply humouring Mishter Gray who wanted to humour Mishter Harriz.

The linseed oil and drying the scrapbook in the oven without any apparent damage to it occurring or any lingering evidence of his having done so is - as I say - the apex of his unhinged tale.

Monday, April 13, 1992
Shirley Harrison: "Is it me or is there one hell of a whiff of linseed oil in the room?"
Mike [thinks]: "Damn, I knew I should have used extra virgin olive oil".

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike

In my opinion, I feel that it’s only fair to say that examples of Anne’s undisguised handwriting show close similarities to the handwriting in the scrapbook.

Hi, Kattrup. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that she had a hand in writing it, mind. If someone on here has a few examples of her handwriting compared to the diarists then I'd be interested in seeing it. I'm sure it's probably been posted before but my memory isn't the best!

I mentioned on one of the other threads that Anne's story has never really sat well with me, and her Radio Merseyside interview just seemed a bit tongue in cheek.

I do think that if Mike penned it, and could prove it, then he would have done so. I'm still in the modern hoax camp, though, as there's too many "coincidences" for my liking which rule out it being a much older document, including but not limited to the infamous list of items and the tin matchbox empty...

[Kattrup]

I've said it before, but in my opinion, I feel that it's only fair to say that the handwriting in the scrapbook doesn't match Mike or Anne's any more than it matches Maybrick's.

Hi Mike

In my opinion, I feel that it’s only fair to say that examples of Anne’s undisguised handwriting show close similarities to the handwriting in the scrapbook.

[Mike J. G.]

I've said it before, but in my opinion, I feel that it's only fair to say that the handwriting in the scrapbook doesn't match Mike or Anne's any more than it matches Maybrick's.

That being said, it's only fair to say that the scrapbook was introduced to the world by Mike, so the question remains of where and when he came into its possession.

Chris Jones, to my mind, did a pretty good job of dismantling the Riversdale provenance.

[John Wheat]

At least there was some rather obvious evidence against Oswald (planted or otherwise, you can take your pick).

Where is the evidence against Anne Graham?

Clue: "Hic ... hic ... cam down, cam down, oh, av peshed mesel, get uz a bollle o'whisgee un al say anything, wac. Howz that sound, Mishter Harriz?"

I can hear the police sirens now tearing down Anne's street in January 1995 with a Black Maria packed with indignant polis seeking to right the terrible wrongs of a woman who had committed the unforgivable crime of the century the day she married MJB.

This is utter bullshit. Its clear to all but the ill informed that Mike and Ann Barrett wrote the diary.

[Iconoclast]

Michael John Barrett is the Lee Harvey Oswald of Ripperology: the lone penman theory. One would think Anne Graham was living on the dark side of the moon in 1992.

At least there was some rather obvious evidence against Oswald (planted or otherwise, you can take your pick).

Where is the evidence against Anne Graham?

Clue: "Hic ... hic ... cam down, cam down, oh, av peshed mesel, get uz a bollle o'whisgee un al say anything, wac. Howz that sound, Mishter Harriz?"

I can hear the police sirens now tearing down Anne's street in January 1995 with a Black Maria packed with indignant polis seeking to right the terrible wrongs of a woman who had committed the unforgivable crime of the century the day she married MJB.

[rjpalmer]

So you think Anne Barrett the wife of a Mike Barrett the man who claimed to have written the diary is as likely to have been involved in writing the diary as millions of other people. That's not remotely logical. You are not after the truth at all you just desperately want the diary to have been written by Maybrick.

Michael John Barrett is the Lee Harvey Oswald of Ripperology: the lone penman theory. One would think Anne Graham was living on the dark side of the moon in 1992.

[John Wheat]

Anne Barrett could quite clearly have had a hand in the creation of the scrapbook but - if you follow that logic - so could millions of other people. None of that makes your proposition more or less likely as the proposition is unknowable due to a complete lack of evidence.

If we are just playing Idea Tennis, any notion at all potentially scores a point. I’m not playing that game. I’m after the truth and the truth can only ever be established by the evidence.

Do people not want the truth based upon the evidence?

So you think Anne Barrett the wife of a Mike Barrett the man who claimed to have written the diary is as likely to have been involved in writing the diary as millions of other people. That's not remotely logical. You are not after the truth at all you just desperately want the diary to have been written by Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

How can my opinion "that it reads like the words of a child" be factually incorrect? Ann Barrett could quite clearly have had a hand in the creation of the Diary whether Barrett couldor not she admitted it. The onus is on the Diary defenders to show evidence that Maybrick wrote the diary. I've said this before but the provenance of the Diary is terrible. It's clear to all but the most misguided that Mike and Ann Barrett are the obvious and logical candidates for having written the diary.

Anne Barrett could quite clearly have had a hand in the creation of the scrapbook but - if you follow that logic - so could millions of other people. None of that makes your proposition more or less likely as the proposition is unknowable due to a complete lack of evidence.

If we are just playing Idea Tennis, any notion at all potentially scores a point. I’m not playing that game. I’m after the truth and the truth can only ever be established by the evidence.

Do people not want the truth based upon the evidence?

[John Wheat]

"It reads like the words of a child" is simply factually incorrect. Whether you think it is authentic or inauthentic, it does not read like the words of a child. This is just one of a number of tropes which get hauled out whenever a proper (syllogistic) argument is lacking. Mike definitely could not have written the scrapbook: I'm sitting here with folders of his letters from the mid-1990s and it is clear to me that Mike had some form of dyslexia ('skope' instead of 'spoke' shows his brain knew the word but was unable to articulate it on every occasion - a few words later spelling it correctly), so he may well have prepared the text but he did not write it down. And yet he claimed (to Alan Gray who was about to catch him in a lie) that it was "fifty-fifty" between him and Anne. It is for these reasons that the evidence does not support Mike Barrett as physical creator of the text in the scrapbook - it may have been the case but you would have to stretch credulity beyond reason to conclude it, however much you may feel entitled to do so.

Anne has never once claimed she had any involvement in the creation of the scrapbook. Indeed, other than Mike Barrett, no-one has ever claimed to have created the scrapbook. So your 'conclusions' (I'm being generous here) are based upon that which you really would like to be true not on that which is demonstrably (or even argumentatively) true. Evidence is entirely lacking against Mike Barrett other than a hopelessly inane affidavit which you like (1995) which attempts (badly) to contradict the affidavit you don't like (1993).

"It reads like the words of a child" harks back to our mooted thirteen year old inspired to write a blockbuster one wet weekend in Liverpool. Of course, no-one actually argues that because it is patently not the case given the internal content and language of the scrapbook. It's a bit like saying "Total garbage get real" and imagining that that somehow represents a valid argument based upon the available evidence.

How can my opinion "that it reads like the words of a child" be factually incorrect? Ann Barrett could quite clearly have had a hand in the creation of the Diary wether or not she admitted it. The onus is on the Diary defenders to show evidence that Maybrick wrote the diary. I've said this before but the provenance of the Diary is terrible. It's clear to all but the most misguided that Mike and Ann Barrett are the obvious and logical candidates for having written the diary.