The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Caz
The Diary could so easily and probably was written by the Barretts. It reads like the words of a child. I fail to see how the Barretts couldn't have written this. You go on as though it's some literary masterpiece. It really isn't. To say it's unlikely to be the words of a second rate conman and his then wife is foolish at best. I don't know why you persist in your view that Mike and Ann Barrett couldn't have written the diary. You've spent years on this but you have no proof whatsoever that they didn't write the diary.
Cheers John

"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.

[John Wheat]

Yes, John. In my ever so 'umble opinion, Mike's affidavits - from April 1993 and January 1995 - were both total garbage [at least one must have been, so take your pick], but the man never could 'get real' because he just wasn't built that way.

I don't understand why others are so willing to trust this man to have told the truth, even once in his life, about how he acquired the scrapbook, given his legendary capacity for telling lies.

The diary handwriting remains just as much of a problem for the most passionate Barrett hoax believer as it is for the most ardent Maybrick theorist.

Without a positive identification, how can anyone know for a fact that the diary was written by their favourite suspect, and not by an unknown individual at some point before 9th March 1992?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

The Diary could so easily and probably was written by the Barretts. It reads like the words of a child. I fail to see how the Barretts couldn't have written this. You go on as though it's some literary masterpiece. It really isn't. To say it's unlikely to be the words of a second rate conman and his then wife is foolish at best. I don't know why you persist in your view that Mike and Ann Barrett couldn't have written the diary. You've spent years on this but you have no proof whatsoever that they didn't write the diary.

Cheers John

[caz]

Yes, John. In my ever so 'umble opinion, Mike's affidavits - from April 1993 and January 1995 - were both total garbage [at least one must have been, so take your pick], but the man never could 'get real' because he just wasn't built that way.

I don't understand why others are so willing to trust this man to have told the truth, even once in his life, about how he acquired the scrapbook, given his legendary capacity for telling lies.

The diary handwriting remains just as much of a problem for the most passionate Barrett hoax believer as it is for the most ardent Maybrick theorist.

Without a positive identification, how can anyone know for a fact that the diary was written by their favourite suspect, and not by an unknown individual at some point before 9th March 1992?

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

I would not demur that the vast majority of posters prefer the odds of Mike and Anne Barrett having created the scrapbook, but they are only preferring the odds. How do I know this? Well, it's simply because there is no evidence whatsoever that they did. All there is is Mike making facile affidavits that he was a great hoaxer (having previously made one that he wasn't but this one gets ignored because it's jolly awkward). We certainly do not have Anne claiming to have created a hoax. Never once does she suggest it. So it all comes from Mike and Mike could not produce the evidence when it should have been the easiest thing for him to do if he ws telling the truth. You will know this because you will presumably have listened to the infamous Alan Gray-Mike Barrett tapes in which Mike endlessly leads Gray up the garden path on the subject of his 'proofs' which he never, ever produces. You will have heard him at the Cloak and Dagger Club claiming he had the receipt for the scrapbook in his pocket and heard him making a particularly weak excuse for not producing it there and then - but, no worry, because he was more than willing to show it to Andy Aliff after the show was over, but didn't.

I fully understand that believing the claims of Mike Barrett after June 1994 are a very convenient way of not having to give thought to who actually hoaxed the scrapbook or whether or not it is actually authentic, but that will never, ever be enough for me because I have digested so much information on this case that I can see clearly that Mike Barrett was innocent of his own claimed crime and thus so was his wife Anne - if you reason according to the evidence not to any highly subjective opinion which Mike Barrett (or others) may offer us.

Total garbage get real.

[Iconoclast]

Face it Ike. The diary wasn't written by Maybrick. Also Mike and Anne Barrett are the clear favourites to have created the scrapbook. If you have actual evidence that stacks up to refute this please provide it?

I would not demur that the vast majority of posters prefer the odds of Mike and Anne Barrett having created the scrapbook, but they are only preferring the odds. How do I know this? Well, it's simply because there is no evidence whatsoever that they did. All there is is Mike making facile affidavits that he was a great hoaxer (having previously made one that he wasn't but this one gets ignored because it's jolly awkward). We certainly do not have Anne claiming to have created a hoax. Never once does she suggest it. So it all comes from Mike and Mike could not produce the evidence when it should have been the easiest thing for him to do if he ws telling the truth. You will know this because you will presumably have listened to the infamous Alan Gray-Mike Barrett tapes in which Mike endlessly leads Gray up the garden path on the subject of his 'proofs' which he never, ever produces. You will have heard him at the Cloak and Dagger Club claiming he had the receipt for the scrapbook in his pocket and heard him making a particularly weak excuse for not producing it there and then - but, no worry, because he was more than willing to show it to Andy Aliff after the show was over, but didn't.

I fully understand that believing the claims of Mike Barrett after June 1994 are a very convenient way of not having to give thought to who actually hoaxed the scrapbook or whether or not it is actually authentic, but that will never, ever be enough for me because I have digested so much information on this case that I can see clearly that Mike Barrett was innocent of his own claimed crime and thus so was his wife Anne - if you reason according to the evidence not to any highly subjective opinion which Mike Barrett (or others) may offer us.

[Iconoclast]

Oh, I don’t know, Ike. I think it would require “at least twenty blank pages.”

Very good, RJ - made me chuckle ...

[Iconoclast]

It only takes two or three pages of truth to completely demolish 500 pages of utter wibble.

Then I shall hold my breath in anticipation of it.

[John Wheat]

If you (or anyone else) could write a book which showed through concrete and circumstantial evidence (and not an ounce of personal opinion) that Mike and Anne Barrett were heavily involved in the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook, I think we would all be more than happy to read it. It would run to all of two or maybe three pages so it would be a quick read, that's for sure.

Face it Ike. The diary wasn't written by Maybrick. Also Mike and Anne Barrett are the clear favourites to have created the scrapbook. If you have actual evidence that stacks up to refute this please provide it?

[PRB]

... It would run to all of two or maybe three pages so it would be a quick read, that's for sure.

It only takes two or three pages of truth to completely demolish 500 pages of utter wibble.

[rjpalmer]

It would run to all of two or maybe three pages so it would be a quick read, that's for sure.

Oh, I don’t know, Ike. I think it would require “at least twenty blank pages.”

[Iconoclast]

If it was all about the evidence and not personal opinion. Then the book would be about how Maybrick didn't write the diary and that Ann and Mike Barrett were heavily involved in the escapade.

If you (or anyone else) could write a book which showed through concrete and circumstantial evidence (and not an ounce of personal opinion) that Mike and Anne Barrett were heavily involved in the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook, I think we would all be more than happy to read it. It would run to all of two or maybe three pages so it would be a quick read, that's for sure.

[John Wheat]

Hi Scotty,

Good post.

I'm impressed with your background reading - I'd imagine that what you have read has exposed you to pretty much all of the nuances of the case. I note, of course, that you feel the evidence overall points to inauthenticity, but I'd be interested to know what you feel are the core reasons for thinking this. If I pinned you down to 5 things that really bother you, what would they be? Can I suggest for the purposes of this exercise we skip the handwriting and the torn out pages as they are obvious concerns which ought to bother everyone?

I doubt there are going to be many (or indeed any) more pro-Maybrick books published in future other than my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 which will be as balanced an account as I can make it (based upon the evidence) whilst nevertheless still arguing for authenticity. The original was about 125 pages long and - I thought - the best that I could offer, but I now have access to significant amounts of additional material which I suspect will make the 2025 version around 500 pages so, you never know, there may just be enough in there to tip the scales for you!

It's obviously all about the evidence, and not at all about personal opinion, and it's important that we are able to evaluate what we read here (and elsewhere) with one eye on the credibility of any argument being put forward, and credibility clearly comes from backing up our claims with well-founded and ideally syllogistic reasoning.

Cheers,

Ike

If it was all about the evidence and not personal opinion. Then the book would be about how Maybrick didn't write the diary and that Ann and Mike Barrett were heavily involved in the escapade.

[Iconoclast]

It looks like your other diary thread was closed Ike, but on it you wrote:
"Genuine question, Scotty: Is your knowledge about the scrapbook purely based upon what you have read on the message boards?
If not, which books have you read?
PS As you may know, I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority (maybe 90%+) of people who come on the message boards making bold claims about the inauthenticity of the scrapbook do so from a position of having failed to read a single book on the subject, so I'm just checking if you're one of those or not.
Ike"

I read Harrison's book in late 1994, followed by Feldman's book and Harrison's update. This was followed by the Inside Story, Smith's book and the recent Jones and Dolgin book. I've read almost all of the posts on this site and the forums site, Melvin Harris's articles and your Society's Pillar dissertation.

I don't believe in hanging on to books for very long, so all the Maybrick stuff is gone. I'm proposing my theory largely from impressions I've gathered, which suits me just fine.

Hi Scotty,

Good post.

I'm impressed with your background reading - I'd imagine that what you have read has exposed you to pretty much all of the nuances of the case. I note, of course, that you feel the evidence overall points to inauthenticity, but I'd be interested to know what you feel are the core reasons for thinking this. If I pinned you down to 5 things that really bother you, what would they be? Can I suggest for the purposes of this exercise we skip the handwriting and the torn out pages as they are obvious concerns which ought to bother everyone?

I doubt there are going to be many (or indeed any) more pro-Maybrick books published in future other than my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 which will be as balanced an account as I can make it (based upon the evidence) whilst nevertheless still arguing for authenticity. The original was about 125 pages long and - I thought - the best that I could offer, but I now have access to significant amounts of additional material which I suspect will make the 2025 version around 500 pages so, you never know, there may just be enough in there to tip the scales for you!

It's obviously all about the evidence, and not at all about personal opinion, and it's important that we are able to evaluate what we read here (and elsewhere) with one eye on the credibility of any argument being put forward, and credibility clearly comes from backing up our claims with well-founded and ideally syllogistic reasoning.

Cheers,

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Clearly.

[John Wheat]

It's a modern hoax with Mike and Ann Barrett involved. That's clearly what the evidence suggests and frankly the idea it was written by Maybrick is laughable.