The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[erobitha]

And just another thought - if MB's word is good enough for you with absolutely nothing to back it up (and it seems as though it is), then why do you not believe him when he changes his mind and reverts to the stance of the Diary coming to him via Devereux in 1992, which is actually the position he held for the vast majority of the time from 1993 until his death?

They are only interested in Mike Barrett’s word being gospel when it suits their argument. They ignore when under oath he swore blind Tony D gave it to him. They forget his later recanting too. Apparently Mike’s word is absolute and true and in that one specific period in time. Just as he is divorcing his wife and loses contact with his daughter.

Yeah sure, Mike wrote it.

[StevenOwl]

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

And just another thought - if MB's word is good enough for you with absolutely nothing to back it up (and it seems as though it is), then why do you not believe him when he changes his mind and reverts to the stance of the Diary coming to him via Devereux in 1992, which is actually the position he held for the vast majority of the time from 1993 until his death?

[StevenOwl]

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

I said CREDIBLE evidence - Barrett claimed to have written it, and yet he consistently failed to prove that he did, even with the help of a professional private investigator. And I know there's no credible evidence that Maybrick wrote it either - I don't believe he did. The simple fact is that we don't know who wrote it, and your frequent ill-informed posts on all Maybrick threads do nothing to further the discussion.

[John Wheat]

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts folks. I think it's important to keep reminding people of that.

That's not true. Mike Barret admitted writing the Diary. Also there is ZERO credible evidence the Diary was written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts folks. I think it's important to keep reminding people of that.

Hi Owly,

You are spot-on, mate. The only 'evidence' (other than the desperate whimsy of certain commentators) is that Mike Barrett claimed to have created the text of the scrapbook. If he had, he would have needed a vehicle to write it into which provides a nailed-on opportunity to prove his own claim: he claimed to have created the text and he claimed he wrote it into a Victorian scrapbook which he claimed he purchased from an auction at O&L which Lord Orsam claimed must have happened on March 31, 1992.

Here's the rub, though. Mike Barrett claimed at the C&D Club meeting of April 1999 that he had the receipt for the scrapbook in his pocket. Of course, producing this receipt would have stopped the 'hoax' dead in its tracks - whether in 1999 or in 1992 or any other year whatsoever. Of course, he had to take a different course. Of course, he didn't produce it. Of course, he had no intention of producing it. Of course, he could not produce it because he didn't have a receipt in the first place.

How do we know with some reasonable certainty that he didn't have one? Well, because he also didn't produce it in June 1994 when he first claimed he had created the text and wrote it into the scrapbook; and then he didn't produce it in January 1995 when he second claimed he had created the text and wrote it into the scrapbook; nor did he provide it to his private detective lapdog Alan Gray despite many requests from the latter for the evidence he could use to destroy the 'hoax' Barrett was claiming to Gray he had created.

So there is absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever (other than the desperate whimsy of certain commentators) that the text in the Victorian scrapbook was created by the brilliant, creative mind of Mike Barrett nor indeed by that of his arch-fiend sidekick and erstwhile wife, Anne Graham.

Our dear readers should caution themselves every time they see stupidities such as Wheat's cut-and-paste one-liners: it simply isn't as simple as it looks!

PS Do you think he actually types those one-liners out each time or do you think he just cuts and pastes them out of a Word document he keeps on his Desktop?

Ike

[StevenOwl]

The Diary was in all likelihood written by the Barretts.

There is absolutely ZERO credible evidence that the Diary was written by the Barretts folks. I think it's important to keep reminding people of that.

[John Wheat]

The Diary was in all likelihood written by the Barretts.

[Scott Nelson]

Tony Devereux, at most, may have discussed the idea of Maybrick-as-Ripper with Barrett--for, as has been discussed many times, Barrett does allude to Devereux being very 'helpful,' and further, there is utterly no reasonable doubt that Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool with its two chapters on the Maybrick case was in Tony's possession by at least July 1991--ie., long before Dodd had the work done on his house in March 1992. That said, when it comes to a hoax Devereux also has the perfect alibi as far as I am concerned: he was dead and buried long before pen ever went to paper.

What if Tales of Liverpool was actually Tony's copy which Mike had borrowed and returned to him?

[caz]

I also accept David Barrat's commentary... I don't think any of the diary faithful have a good response to a number of questions he's raised, including the 11 day 'span' that Michael Barrett referred to on a number of occasions over the years--and which Barrett could not have possibly anticipated someone in a remote decade recreating from the available documentation and thus prove plausible.

First of all, I don't consider myself to be one of 'the diary faithful', whatever that means, unless it's just the polar opposite of 'the Barrett and Barrat faithful', who seem to actually believe that the diary was physically created by the Barretts over 11 days, between 1st and 13th April 1992, as opposed to being 'transcribed' during that interval, from scrapbook to word processor, so that Mike could take both documents to London with him and impress everyone with a good job done on the transcript.

There is no evidence for the scrapbook being obtained as late as 31st March 1992, or that it came from any auction sale, and the whole idea is not transformed from highly implausible to 'plausible', let alone provable or in any way proved, merely by the existence of the little red 1891 diary and the specifications it represents.

As Mike was in the habit of doing, he tended to base his tall stories about the diary on actual events, adapting the dates and details to whatever advantage he was seeking to gain at the time. So a live electrician living on Fountains Road in 1992 became a deceased friend living there until August 1991, so Mike could explain how he came to have Jack the Ripper's "diary" in his possession. The transcript that was prepared from the diary for its debut in London on 13th April 1992 became, in January 1995, the draft that was handwritten into the scrapbook by the wife who had deserted him the year before and had just divorced him. But even Mike knew that if he claimed this was not done until early April 1992, when he had already begun making arrangements with Doreen to bring both the diary and the transcript to London, it would simply not be credible, so he wisely backdated the process to January 1990 in his affidavit, apparently altering the year on the draft version to 1991 at a later date - probably when he realised his mistake that Devereux had died that year, and not in 1990.

[caz]

And is this 'notebook' you keep at work a used photo album with the initial pages cut out and discarded?

You seem to be suggesting it is normal 'human behaviour' to do such a thing, so I was just wondering...

Interesting. This arrow was aimed at ero, but I think it may have backfired.

So one particularly damning feature of the book, physically, is the fact that its early pages have been cut out and discarded. Yes, I think we can all see why that was bound to look very suspicious. But at least the lack of dates would make it a not unreasonable choice for a prepared text that deliberately avoids them. Just adapt that text to start mid-sentence and imply that Maybrick himself ripped out the offending pages. Simples.

What is less easy to explain in that case is why Mike would have put in an earlier telephone request - but not until March 1992 - for a 'diary' for 1880-90, which was just asking for something with unwanted dates in it and, worse, that this diary could be 'partly used'. If he got dates he would almost certainly be obliged to obliterate each one, which would be awkward enough to achieve, if not 100% fatal. But all used pages would also need to be 'cut out and discarded', wherever they might happen to fall within any partly used diary located. It would have been a recipe for disaster, for anyone trying to obtain the right kind of book for faking the Maybrick diary, and yet that is what people think was the obvious, and only possible purpose behind Mike's request.

[rjpalmer]

Caz Brown is evidently still endlessly fascinated by my views about the Maybrick Hoax and posed a question over on JTR Forums.

I wonder if RJ Palmer has now eliminated citizen Kane from his enquiries and is putting all his eggs in Anne Graham's basket, or is juggling the two in order to maximise his options.

Just for jolly, and having a few idle minutes before the baseball game starts, I thought I'd answer this question, even though it drips with its usual catty humor.

Not unlike Keith Skinner, I prefer to "maximize" my options. Keith has stated that his preferred provenance is the diary having come from underneath the floorboards of Dodd's house (though some might argue this is merely the location of a provenance and not a true provenance) but that his second choice would be the diary having come from a tin box that William "Billy" Graham had supposedly inherited from his step 'ganny' in 1943, with the additional assumption that his step 'ganny' had some connection to a senior servant in the Maybrick houshold. For reasons I've never quite fathomed, he seems to view the possibility of a modern hoax by the Barretts to be remote.


Keith Skinner, 2 - 2 -2018.

"There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories."

I bring up Keith's views merely as a useful counterpunch to my own, and to press upon an apparently skeptical Caz the reasonableness of keeping one's options open using a format that she can appreciate.

So, to answer Caz's question..

Similarly, but perhaps more forcefully, it is my strong belief that Mike Barrett and Anne Graham hoaxed the Diary of Jack the Ripper without the help of anyone, although I hasten to add that I also strongly suspect that Anne Graham was an unwilling participant--a mere victim of her ex-husband's abuse and manipulation. She thought she could control the situation--that Mike would just be 'sent packing' by the literary agent (to use her own phrase)---but this backfired badly, and she was drawn unwillingly into his foolish plot. Tony Devereux, at most, may have discussed the idea of Maybrick-as-Ripper with Barrett--for, as has been discussed many times, Barrett does allude to Devereux being very 'helpful,' and further, there is utterly no reasonable doubt that Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool with its two chapters on the Maybrick case was in Tony's possession by at least July 1991--ie., long before Dodd had the work done on his house in March 1992. That said, when it comes to a hoax Devereux also has the perfect alibi as far as I am concerned: he was dead and buried long before pen ever went to paper.

If it could ever be proven that Anne and Mike were not involved in the diary's creation, which I think is wildly unlikely, I would accept that, but merely 'revert back' to giving some credence to Melvin Harris's original theory which I am hesitant to accept--ie., that Barrett was just the handler of a document forged by others---just as Peter Birchwood was hesitant to accept it when I exchanged messages with him in the early 2000s. I bring up Birchwood--a name that will be unfamiliar to most-- because several weeks ago Caz reposted an ancient relic from the archives--something she scolds others for doing--- suggesting that Birchwood fully accepted Melvin's theory, but if he ever did, it was short-lived based on what he told me in the early 2000s. He saw no reason to expand Keith Skinner's 'nest of forgers' beyond two: Mike and Anne, and I feel the same way--even more so than I did even 5 years ago. I don't know if there is any evidence that Melvin Harris still held the same views he had previously expressed before his sudden and unexpected death, or whether he had gone over to Birchwood's way of thinking.

All of this will be boring and meaningless to anyone who stumbles upon it; I appreciate that this is largely a private matter between Caz and I, but she seemed to want an answer, so here it is.

Not unlike Martin Fido, I give utterly no credence to the idea that the diary can pre-date 1987, nor in my case, even 1992. There is not one jot of evidence that the diary is an old document other than Rod McNeil's "ion migration" analysis which was materially flawed, which he himself drastically revised, and which was rejected even by his own team members. Even the Diary's own forensic expert--Dr. Nick Eastaugh (who believed the diary was a hoax) felt that McNeil could not adequately explain his methods or explain away their technical limitations. Without this, there is nothing to show the diary is an old relic, and much to show that it isn't.

I also accept David Barrat's commentary that the diary contains a number of anachronisms and find the counter explanations for these (a Mr-Bumble-like buffoon, etc.) to be completely incompetent and unconvincing. I don't think any of the diary faithful have a good response to a number of questions he's raised, including the 11 day 'span' that Michael Barrett referred to on a number of occasions over the years--and which Barrett could not have possibly anticipated someone in a remote decade recreating from the available documentation and thus prove plausible.

I hope that satisfies Caz Brown's curiosity. I don't plan on discussing it further with her. Thanks.

Let's play ball!

[Mike J. G.]

Can you think of a known hoax (not an imagined hoax, or an I-wish-it-were-an-established-hoax) where the hoaxer had bought that Porsche you had your eye on with your hastily-concocted Hitler and Oswald diaries?

Mike Barrett had a share of the copyright on the Victorian scrapbook so he made about £40,000 out of the book sales. Shirley Harrison and publisher Robert Smith presumably made similar amounts. But - if none of those created the fake - then they are not the example you are craving, are they? So when has a hoaxer actually made the fortune you so confidently tell us has been made from a gullible press and public?

Your casual analysis is a common danger on this site. In my brilliant Society's Pillar, I even dedicate a chapter to this ('An Arsenal for the Indolent'). In my even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025, there will be a chapter which will pretty much demolish any wishful-thinking you've ever done regarding Mike Barrett's authorship of the scrapbook - and all pretty much from his own words, painfully transcribed by me (and others) over many long days and weeks. You can order your copy now simply by being nice to me.

Ike

Roger Patterson, 1967.



He was in the middle of making a movie based on the book he'd published a year earlier: Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?




He'd also set up a research project around this time from which he received funding for his endeavours, namely, 'Squatchin!




While making this movie loosely based on his book, he ran out of funding, which he'd gathered from various friends and associates, namely a husband and wife couple called Radford, from whom he borrowed a substantial amount and never paid back, according to the available evidence.




Having bugger-all in the way of moolah, he decided that he'd be better off scrapping the movie idea and just shooting the"money shot," and offering it up as a real-life encounter with an ape (wo)man.




Many of the scenes intended for the movie are still available to watch on the first reel of film, various scens involving Patterson and Bob Gimlin in a wig pretending to be a native American guide. The second reel of footage is the well-known segment that is now embedded in pop culture and legend, the Bigfoot striding along the Californian sandbar.




Patterson made a good wedge of cash selling this footage many times over to many various people and companies who screened it, often alongside genuine nature and wildlife documentaries. Not only that, but Patterson took the footage on a tour of North America with Bob Gimlin, complete with wig, until he had a dispute with Gimlin over his lack of ability to get his story straight after seeming to contradict Roger's version of events in interviews, not that that bothers the believers.




Roger Patterson went to his grave swearing that he'd genuinely filmed a real live Sasquatch, and he went owing a lot of money to a lot of people, but having been diagnosed with terminal cancer some time before, he didn't much care, in fact , he'd even been wanted for having pinched the very camera he shot the footage on, which he'd failed to return!




So he left his wife a nice little nest egg, and to this day, nobody has conclusively proven a hoax .. Which is why such things as "smoking guns" in hoaxes, aren't really necessary, IMO.




What came up a lot from people who interviewed R&B, was that both men lacked, primarily, the intellectual capacity essential to the production of a hoax ... termed a masterpiece. Similarly, one researcher noted that "Most acquaintances of Patterson volunteered that neither he nor Gimlin were clever enough to put something that detailed together."




So, did Roger Patterson genuinely film a real-life Sasquatch in the Californian wilderness? Or was he just a bit more clever than most people gave him credit for?


Something to chew on for a while...

[Iconoclast]

Dang, Ike. You're actually willing to double-down on this gobbledygook?

This is almost uniquely galling - last week, I definitely triple-downed on this one and posted it. I'm sure I did (I can visualise it). Worryingly, I'm now wondering if I previewed it but forgot to post it. Dingblast it if I did.

Anyway, it was another brilliant post from your favourite poster in which I triple-evented on the provenance chat, but I'm buggered if I can remember what I wrote so I'm going to have to leave it there and you are all going to have to just accept and deal with the disappointment of having missed out on some of my best genius yet.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

The lack of a provenance is self-evidently not evidence that its provenance is weak. It is evidence that its provenance is missing. Therefore, we can have no idea whether its provenance was in reality strong or weak.

Dang, Ike. You're actually willing to double-down on this gobbledygook?

Have you looked up the definition of provenance in a dictionary?

"provenance: a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality."

Another way to describe it would be a record of the object's history or its chain of custody, with the obvious implication that it needs to have one!

If there is no record of where a questioned document came from, then there is no provenance and by definition the provenance is weak; indeed, it is so weak as to be non-existent.

Being non-existent is not a good thing, Ike. Not in the world of questioned documents, and no word salad will change this.

You're also glossing over the obviously embarrassing fact that the diary does have a provenance: both Mike Barrett and Anne Graham stated that the diary was given to Mike by Tony Devereux, a retired printer from down the boozer.

That--such as it is--was the diary's 'record of ownership.'

Unfortunately, Mr. Devereux was inconveniently dead and couldn't back up the story, and Devereux's children denied he had ever mentioned owning such a relic and his son-in-law characterized Devereux as so stingy that he never gave anything to anybody.

Thus, the provenance was weak. I remember one well-known Ripperologist, Paul Begg, once characterizing it as "appalling."

And thirty years on, things haven't changed much. Mike and Anne both changed their stories, of course, creating other provenances that also lacked confirmation. And currently we are back to being told that Mike got the diary down the boozer--from a man who denies having known Barrett and denies having given him the diary.

Thus, the provenance is still weak.

Anyway, I must be having some effect on Society's Pillar, Ike. I notice that you changed the line about the diary having "two excellent provenances" to "two potential provenances."

It is a small revision, but I feel my time here has not been wasted.

[Iconoclast]

This is one of the most remarkable arguments I've seen from the author of Society's Pillar, and I look forward to 2025 for more of the same.

"The lack of a provenance... is not evidence that its provenance is weak."

Let that one roll around your head.

For if the diary lacks a provenance, how can the provenance it lacks be weak?

The provenance it lacks could just as easily be extremely strong!

Similarly, I lack a Rolls Royce, but if I did own a Rolls Royce, it would be a top-notch model.

And no one can provide a single shred of evidence that the Rolls Royce I lack isn't a top-notch model.

Q.E.D.

Q.E.D., my arse, Mr. Palmer, ex-critic of James Maybrick or some such mince.

I'll say it again, and then it will be three times we have said it between us today. The lack of a provenance is self-evidently not evidence that its provenance is weak. It is evidence that its provenance is missing. Therefore, we can have no idea whether its provenance was in reality strong or weak. But you knew that, in truth, didn't you? Of course you did, you bloody well said so! I think you were just missing the cut and thrust of going head-to-head with Ripperonomy's finest proponent - the man who will one day put it all to bed. You just want to dice with him, knowing that this you will tell your grandchildren in your dotage: "I clashed swords with The Great Iconoclast, back in the day, before the '25".

Look, it's okay, wave your sword. There are battles a-plenty before you all concede and scuttle away with your tales [sic] between your lugs [sic]. In the meantime, let those tales "roll around your head" - there's room enough to spare, I suspect ...

Ike