The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Iconoclast]

Exactly, Abby. Barrett does not have to be confirmed as “credible forger”. There are lots of in-credible forgers and criminals who fooled everyone they met. “He couldn’t have done it, he doesn’t know how” or “He doesn’t have it in him”. It’s even a cliche joke about serial killers, “such a quiet guy”.

My own little psychological theory about motivation is that the people fooled by Barrett have now spent 20-25 years discussing this shallow case as if it were the revelations of the Messiah and they don’t want to look like they’ve wasted their time. So they keep denying and obfuscating.
Harsh, I guess, but seriously, this case is about as subtle and complex as a pack of butter.

Believe me, your argument melts away just as easily ...

[Iconoclast]

... the people fooled by Barrett have now spent 20-25 years discussing this shallow case as if it were the revelations of the Messiah and they don’t want to look like they’ve wasted their time. So they keep denying and obfuscating.

Just for clarity, Kattrup (and prompted by someone else's thought), who exactly do you believe these fooled people to be exactly? By actual name, ideally. Who has been fooled by Barrett and then wasted a quarter of a century seeking to hide that fact through denial and obfuscation?

I hope you're not simply going to cite people who are do not accept that he was a master-forger?

[Scott Nelson]

Old hoax, originated by the playwright and newsman, Harry Dam. Penned by the stage actor, George Grossmith and placed in Battlecrease by Michael Maybrick.

Note to Ike: You may need to amend Society's Pillar again.

[rjpalmer]

The internal content of the scrapbook required significant researching. My Feldman did so, employing experienced researchers to hunt down every bit of information they could find on Maybrick.

Isn't this a bit of a non-sequitur, Ike? Men have spent years and vast fortunes searching for Atlantis. Their results are what matters, not the mere fact that they went looking.

For instance, on another thread you mention one Gustavus A. Witt, a former business partner of Maybrick's, who had an office in a building near Tower Hill, approximately a third of a mile from Mitre Square. This is a splendid 'fun fact,' unearthed by Feldy's team, but since the Diary makes no mention of Witt, it can hardly be cited as evidence of the Diarist's obscure and sophisticated knowledge.

Indeed, the Diary remains entirely Witt-less; we don't get the slightest hint of Witt throughout the journal's 63 pages. And wouldn't our modern hoaxer have wanted to show off his Witt? To have milked good ol' Gus to the fullest? So, in a sense, the obscure shards of a lost Atlantis unearthed by Feldy's team actually leave us wondering about the very existence of the Diarist's sophistication; in the end, the team seemed to have learned far more about Maybrick's day-to-day life than the Diarist ever demonstrated.

And why 'My Feldman'?

[Iconoclast]

Gustavus Witt and his 'London business' near the Minories demonstrates that the man who pre-1992 had no link to the Whitechapel in which he was about to be accused (or about to accuse himself) of committing murder in actually had close ties to the place where he was later accused (or found to accuse himself) of committing murders in. That is a truly stupendously unlikely eventuality. If I picked a businessman out at random and he had no association with Whitechapel, and then hoax a confession from him that he was Jack, I would have absolutely no right to expect him to have any association with Whitechapel and - if he did - I'd been stunned at my prescience. For the record, of course, Maybrick has the unexpected wit, and the unexpected 'wife'. Well I never - and this thing's a hoax, remember, everyone!

'And wouldn't our modern hoaxer have wanted to show off his Witt?' you say? Well, I imagine that a Victorian hoaxer and a modern hoaxer would both perhaps want to do both were they aware of Witt, but his absence in the scrapbook is not because the author did not know of him but because the author had no need to mention him. As the scrapbook was written by James Maybrick, entirely (until the final page) for his own eyes, why would he mention what to him was an established fact and not one to titillate his senses in the same way as fresh fried bacon? (I think your presumptions are driving your argument too hard here - easier on the whip, my lad.)

The Maybrick of the Victorian scrapbook is not writing for our eyes - he's writing for his own, to recall the gore and gloat at how clever he has been. So he wrote "and do I not have legitimate reasons for doing so" (going to Whitechapel) which is as good as it is going to get for us. Did he mean Sarah Robertson? Did he mean his brother Michael? Or did he mean the erstwhile Gustavus Witt?

The non sequitur lies only in your question. The scrapbook references evidence which takes a team of experienced researchers to track down, but Michael Barrett just plucks them out of the air. Your Atlantis analogy is facile. People have searched for Atlantis, the Holy Grail, and why anyone would support Millwall, but Atlantis and the Holy Grail have not been found. You are right when you say it is the results that matter. Feldman and his band of merry people found information which directly linked Maybrick to Whitechapel. Michael Barrett found only the bottle ...

[Iconoclast]

Old hoax, originated by the playwright and newsman, Harry Dam. Penned by the stage actor, George Grossmith and placed in Battlecrease by Michael Maybrick.

Note to Ike: You may need to amend Society's Pillar again.

Bang to rights there, Scotty ma boy - I completely forgot about that well-known hoaxing triumervate Dam, Grossmith, and Maybrick. I'm amazed that I forgot about the latter - that Michael Maybrick was a one, wasn't he? Planting a hoax blaming his brother for the atrocities which gripped the country right when he himself was in the ascendant of his earning power and walking in the company of the Establishment and even the Royals. What a prankster to put all that in jeopardy simply to show Dam and Grossmith who had the biggest …

I will amend Society's Pillar forthwith and thank you for your wisdom.

[PaulB]

mr Begg
he was a published author, no?
And the idea that he was too much of a drunk or whatever to conceive and or write it is wrong IMHO as many fiction writers, and extremely good and creative ones at that, have had drinking and or substance abuse problems. and its not even that good. of course he could have done it.

I wouldn't have said Mike was an author. And it isn't his drinking problem to which I was referring but his personality, whether he was the sort of person who would have just talked about perpetrating the hoax or would have energised himself and actually done it? That's why I asked if you'd met Mike because there whilst there was nothing in principle to have stopped Mike from having forged the diary, it's whether or not he really had the capacity to do it that matters, and that's not so easy to judge just using instinct.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hesitated before posting this because when I’ve played devils advocate on this subject in the past I’ve been responded to as if I’d just confirmed my chairmanship of the Jimmy Saville fan club! but I’ll ask my question anyway.

The handwriting in the diary is understandably a problem for most but I’ll admit that I’ve never found this issue particularly a problem but my question is:

In the history of forging has there ever been a forgery where the forger made absolutely no effort to copy the handwriting of his or her alleged subject?

Ive always been curious about this but I’ve never had a response.

[Graham]

And the Watch? Strange that no-one has thus far mentioned the Watch on this thread. I wonder why?

Graham

[Iconoclast]

In the history of forging has there ever been a forgery where the forger made absolutely no effort to copy the handwriting of his or her alleged subject?

Ive always been curious about this but I’ve never had a response.

Then you've not been asking the right person, Herlockster!

I think there have been many forgeries in the UK alone where the forger forgot to copy the known handwriting of the intended victim but fortunately it's quite hard to smuggle stuff out of Broadmoor so none have ever seen the light of day.

[Iconoclast]

And the Watch? Strange that no-one has thus far mentioned the Watch on this thread. I wonder why?

Graham

Honestly, I was offended by your banners and your taunts back in 2009 but this is taking it too far, Graham. See #9 for the slightest nick of a mention. Nothing like as big a nick as Damian Duff got though ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then you've not been asking the right person, Herlockster!

I think there have been many forgeries in the UK alone where the forger forgot to copy the known handwriting of the intended victim but fortunately it's quite hard to smuggle stuff out of Broadmoor so none have ever seen the light of day.

[Harry D]

I find the reference to the murder in Manchester quite curious. It's not something a hoaxer would've had to include, and the lack of any evidence to such a murder is a potential banana skin. I guess the hoaxer could simply be relying on the fact that a lot of murders are unreported or the records have been lost over time.

[Harry D]

'I have walked the streets and have become more than familiar with them'

I find this line quite interesting too. First of all, would Maybrick have been familiar enough with the labyrinthine streets of Whitechapel after a few rare visits to London? Enough to carry out the murders with the aplomb of the Ripper?

Secondly, this line does hit you as a hoaxer's attempt to justify how Maybrick was confident enough to pull off these murders. He's speaking directly to the audience here.

[Spider]

The main problems with the ‘Diary’ are the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the emergence of it ‘on the scene’. It is now clouded by the smoke and mirrors of the different ‘stories’ behind the history of it - the initial story of Mike Barrett receiving it from his drinking mate Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett alleging that she had passed it to Tony to give to Mike and her remembering seeing the ‘Diary’ in her father Billy Graham’s possessions in the late 1960’s.
Then we have Mike Barrett stating he’d created the ‘Diary’, and then later retracting his statement, this then followed by another story of Electrician’s discovering the ‘Diary’ under floorboards at Battlecrease House.
I believe that Anne Barrett could, if she were honest and frank enough, clear up the provenance of the 'Diary'.
Had the ‘diary’ come to light cleanly via a prominent ‘Ripper Expert’ the opinions and discussions would, I expect, be very different.

The second problem with the ‘Diary’ and in particular the discussions and comments regarding it, is that, in my opinion, people have just not read it objectively in detail, and have a preconceived/biased opinion before they do.

I always remember many years ago reading “When the Wind Blows” by Raymond Briggs.
(When the Wind Blows is a 1982 graphic novel, by British artist Raymond Briggs, that shows a nuclear attack on Britain by the Soviet Union from the viewpoint of a retired couple, Jim and Hilda Bloggs).
When read from a light hearted perspective it is a funny and comical piece of work, but put on a serious head and read it and it becomes the darkest, scariest and sickening read.

So, I would say read the ‘Diary’ from different mind sets, get in the authors head as though you were writing it. Examine it in detail, though not a ‘Diary’ and more of a Journal, you can put dates to passages, and place periods when nothing was written for weeks. Look at the seemingly meaningless passages and throwaway comments (pointless inclusions for a hoaxer).

Re-examine it again and then get yourself a copy of ‘Letters from Hell’ by Stewart Evans & Keith Skinner, and finally get a copy and read "“A Study in Scarlet”" by Arthur Conan Doyle (1887/1888) having the first appearance of Sherlock Holmes.