The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[John Wheat]

There is no plausible reason why the Barrett's couldn't have written the diary.

[Scott Nelson]

The problem with your theory, Scott, is with the part which says "he thought he could use it to create his own version of a Maybrick diary". The question is why? By your own account he already had one he could use which was perfectly suitable. You say "ego" but that really explains nothing, is based on nothing, and is just a product of your own imagination. We both agree that he's already called Doreen who has said she'd like to see it and is interested in publishing it, so the obvious and simple course is for him to take it to London. After this, Mike may have had second thoughts about turning over what he was given. I just can't see any good reason for him to waste time, effort and money creating a duplicate of what he already had. It just makes no sense and is certainly not simple. What I'm proposing is a theory. I've never suggested otherwise. But I think that "ego" can and does enter into things like this. I proposed that Mike was simply handed a completed diary. With time on his hands, Mike possibly thought that he could turn over a newly created version of the diary instead of the one he was given, just for the personal satisfaction that he could pull one over on the public rather than relying on someone else. Try and put yourself into the mind of Mike Barrett, if you can.

Your claim that Mike's wife "did most of the writing for him" isn't supported by her own account which was that she helped him tidy up his articles. He was definitely a journalist in the sense that his name was attached to the byline of a number of articles in nationally published magazines (sometimes labelled as "Exclusive") for which he was paid a fee. I think Anne's role in helping with the articles was deliberately underplayed to give Mike the confidence he needed to develop his writing. But, truly, that's not even the most important part because, while I can't think of any reason why he couldn't have drafted the fairly simple diary text himself, if you think that's a problem, he could have sought help from Billy, Tony, Anne, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. Mike wanted to try it by himself. One or all of them might have written the entire thing for him. One or more of them probably did, but Mike came to the idea of using that document (the diary) only as a guide for his version. The point is that his actions in March 1992 looking for a Victorian diary with blank pages indicate that the text hadn't yet been written out in manuscript. The diary manuscript was likely written while Tony Devereux was still alive. Mike possibly didn't like the fact that it was written in a photo album and that album came via his wife's father after the photos were removed.

If we can only guess at Mike Barrett's mental state prior to 1992, as you admit, this means we have to use our imagination to invent what his state was. There is absolutely no reason to suppose he was suffering from Korsakoff Syndrome in 1992 and you've yet to provide any evidence that he was ever even diagnosed with this in 1994, or at any other time in his life. Somewhere I recall seeing an actual diagnosis medical form of Mike's condition with Korsakoff Syndrome. I believe it may have been printed in an early issue of Ripperana. I can't find the issue and may no longer have it, would you? I also searched this site and the forums, to no avail. It may have been lost when casebook crashed some years back. I'll keep looking. No-one here has any idea what Mike was capable of, despite a lot of people claiming to know that he was too stupid to do anything, but, really, I'm perfectly happy to say that others drafted the text of the diary which he then dictated to Anne. As far as I'm concerned, his only roles in the project might have been obtaining the photograph album, dictating someone else's fake diary to his wife and then taking the completed diary to London, if that makes you happy. He could have done this very easily with any mental issues you'd care to invent.

I don't care to be accused of inventing things. As long as one clearly identifies that it's speculation. Your second to last sentence is possible, but is it really simpler than mine?

[rjpalmer]

It's bizarre that so few can grasp that Anne Graham is the main suspect. It doesn't bode well for 'Ripperology.' There's no way in hell that she would have made herself the center of attention if the diary had come from Devereux or Lyons.

[John Wheat]

It's bizarre that so few can grasp that Anne Graham is the main suspect. It doesn't bode well for 'Ripperology.' There's no way in hell that she would have made herself the center of attention if the diary had come from Devereux or Lyons.

The whole Diary saga with Diary supporters still claiming the Diary was written by Maybrick is not good for Ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't care to be accused of inventing things. As long as one clearly identifies that it's speculation. Your second to last sentence is possible, but is it really simpler than mine?

Scott, I can only think that you've bought into the argument that Michael Barrett was incapable of doing anything, made by people who never knew him in 1992 and barely knew him at all. Perhaps you also think that if the diary had been written in April 1992 it would have looked obviously new to those who examined it in April (which is another bad argument in my opinion). I don't know, but your determination to attribute the forgery to someone other than Barrett is otherwise hard to understand. It's good that we both agree that he was seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 to forge the Ripper diary but where I have a serious problem with your theory is in thinking that after a fully created diary in a Victorian looking "old book" magically dropped into his lap for him to exploit as he wished, which is apparently what you think happened, he would have wasted time, money and energy in pretty much replicating it. It just doesn't make sense to me. I take your point about the fact that the photograph album had pages ripped out of it but that didn't seem to trouble Doreen Montgomery, Shirley Harrison, the guy at the British museum, the antique bookseller, Paul Feldman, Robert Smith and a host of others, including over very own Ike Mitchell. I'm not convinced it would have troubled Michael Barrett. And there's no evidence that he ever felt troubled by it.

As for your claim that Anne's role in her husband's journalism was "deliberately underplayed to give Mike the confidence he needed to develop his writing", this doesn't make sense because Anne explained that she (only) helped him tidy up his articles years later, after she had left him, at a time when she would have had no interest in boosting his confidence. Had she actually done all the writing she would surely have said so. For that reason, you can be confident that Mike did have a certain ability as a journalist. He might not have had the skills with spelling and grammar but that's true of a lot of writers whose first drafts are knocked into shape by others. Many writers don't (and can't) even write at all. They dictate their books.

I'm afraid I don't have any recall of seeing any such medical form in Ripperana. I do think you're going down the wrong path here because even if such a form existed it's only going to apply to his period of severe alcoholism which hadn't commenced in 1992.

It's obviously fine to put forward your theory but with no actual evidence to support it and the unlikelihood of Barrett feeling the need to replicate what he would already have had in his hands, it just seems a bit odd to me that you feel the need to regularly push it as if it's got something going for it. That's why I asked you what was behind it and was surprised when you mentioned Korsakoff Syndrome which can't possibly be a relevant factor. Once that's eliminated there's no reason why Mike and Anne couldn't have created that error strewn diary themselves.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Scott,


"Somewhere I recall seeing an actual diagnosis medical form of Mike's condition with Korsakoff Syndrome. I believe it may have been printed in an early issue of Ripperana. I can't find the issue and may no longer have it, would you? I also searched this site and the forums, to no avail. It may have been lost when casebook crashed some years back. I'll keep looking."

Are you possibly thinking of a medical form referring to Mike receiving dialysis? Nick Warren at Ripperana wrote rather ironically about Barrett's Korsakoff Syndrome, so I doubt it was anything Warren published.

Barrett had kidney disease, and it was suggested by some (mainly Peter Birchwood who was speaking from personal knowledge) that it might have had debilitating influence on Mike's mental state.

Sometime back, Tom Mitchell and his correspondent doubted this, implying Barrett was a malingerer who had made it up, but a medical form was posted on this site that referred to Barrett being 'on dialysis.'

It's still on the 'Incontrovertible' thread 2/23/2022, 11:24 a.m.

I've never seen any official paperwork referring to Barrett having KS; it was a claim made by Shirley Harrison after a conversation with a physician, but she didn't publish any paperwork.

--

As for your theory, I have some sympathy for where you're coming from; 20 years ago, I put some faith in Melvin Harris's belief that the diary was created by Devereux & A. N. Other, which is basically what you're suggesting.

But over time I began to realize that Melvin's theory had to be wide of the mark for several reasons. For one, if the diary came from Devereux why would Anne Graham have resurfaced to claim it as her own family heirloom? That doesn't make any sense. She was trying to wash her hands of the whole affair and had left Barrett. It's one of several weak spots in Harris's theory. The whole thing was a 'nightmare' to Anne, so the last thing she would do was jump into the middle of it if she didn't have to.

Here is a significant event that is seldom considered. It's not 'evidence' per se, but it is very suggestive.

When Feldman began to pester Barrett's family in the summer of 1994, with his crazy theories, Barrett's sister was irate. She was in tears. She wanted it to stop.

Who did she call in order to call off the dogs?

Anne Graham.

Think it through. Why would she have done that?

Graham had left Barrett six months earlier. She supposedly had nothing to do with the Diary---it was always Barrett, Barrett, Barrett up front and center. So why would Barrett's sister think Anne Graham had some power to call off Feldman and put an end to the diary nonsense? Anne didn't even know Feldman yet.

Here is someone who actually did know Mike & Anne in the 1980s and early 1990s. What did she know that made her turn to Anne?

We don't know what was said on that phone call, but let's face it. Mike's sister knew what Barrett was capable of, and she knew Graham must have helped him. I'd bet the family farm on it.

Devereux was not a writer, nor did he think of himself as one. He has no known criminal record. The writer with the criminal record was Barrett.

I've been accused of 'reading too much into it,' but I know I'm not. In my opinion, others are reading too little into it.

Graham's instinct was to stay in the shadows. Her friends said this. Harrison said this too, recounting how Graham could barely drag herself to the book launch. Over the past 20 years she has still refused to talk about the diary---washing her hands of it again.

Yet Anne came forward, right after Feldman's pestering and right after Barrett's confession to Brough, made herself the center of scrutiny, and led Feldman and Harrison on a merry dance for months & years.

That's the key to the whole business To repeat: I submit that there's no way in hell she would have done this if the diary was just something Mike had got from Devereux or Lyons.

But she's a free woman in a free country and no one can compel her to talk, so we've come to the end of the line. The rest is just pointless arguing. No one will rehabilitate the diary so there's really little point in discussing it further, for there's very little public interest in the diary nor will the public be deceived unless they are willing participants in their own deception.

And there's nothing anyone can do about that.

RP

[Paddy Goose]

... we've come to the end of the line. The rest is just pointless arguing. No one will rehabilitate the diary so there's really little point in discussing it further ...

RP

Great news! It's over!

[rjpalmer]

Great news! It's over!

...and so, with that, we turn our attention to Charles Lechmere....

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[Scott Nelson]

... where I have a serious problem with your theory is in thinking that after a fully created diary in a Victorian looking "old book" magically dropped into his lap for him to exploit as he wished, which is apparently what you think happened, he would have wasted time, money and energy in pretty much replicating it. I didn't say he would have replicated it. I think he was going to attempt a somewhat similar storyline, but much shorter.

As for your claim that Anne's role in her husband's journalism was "deliberately underplayed to give Mike the confidence he needed to develop his writing", this doesn't make sense because Anne explained that she (only) helped him tidy up his articles years later, after she had left him, at a time when she would have had no interest in boosting his confidence. Presumably she helped him with his articles before they split up. Had she actually done all the writing she would surely have said so. We can't be sure of this. For that reason, you can be confident that Mike did have a certain ability as a journalist. He might not have had the skills with spelling and grammar but that's true of a lot of writers whose first drafts are knocked into shape by others. Many writers don't (and can't) even write at all. They dictate their books.

I'm afraid I don't have any recall of seeing any such medical form in Ripperana. I do think you're going down the wrong path here because even if such a form existed it's only going to apply to his period of severe alcoholism which hadn't commenced in 1992. Could alcoholism severe enough to impair Barrett's mental facilities have existed back to say, 1988?

It's obviously fine to put forward your theory but with no actual evidence to support it and the unlikelihood of Barrett feeling the need to replicate what he would already have had in his hands, it just seems a bit odd to me that you feel the need to regularly push it as if it's got something going for it. That's why I asked you what was behind it and was surprised when you mentioned Korsakoff Syndrome which can't possibly be a relevant factor. It could be relevant. Once that's eliminated there's no reason why Mike and Anne couldn't have created that error strewn diary themselves.

Your debating technique seems to gaslight everything.

[Scott Nelson]

Thank you for your post RJ. Very illuminating.

But over time I began to realize that Melvin's theory had to be wide of the mark for several reasons. For one, if the diary came from Devereux why would Anne Graham have resurfaced to claim it as her own family heirloom? That doesn't make any sense. She was trying to wash her hands of the whole affair and had left Barrett.

I've said on several occasions that Anne's 'in her family of years' story pertains to the photo album that was supplied ...to, I proposed Tony Devereux. Not the album with diary writing in it, but just the album with blank pages and ripped out pages. That, I think, was the extent of Anne Graham's involvement with the so-called Maybrick Diary.

[Iconoclast]

But she's a free woman in a free country and no one can compel her to talk, so we've come to the end of the line. The rest is just pointless arguing. No one will rehabilitate the diary so there's really little point in discussing it further, for there's very little public interest in the diary nor will the public be deceived unless they are willing participants in their own deception.

And there's nothing anyone can do about that.

RP

Good God, man, you should have signed off 'RIP' not simply 'RP'. What's wrong with you? Where's your backbone? Your stiff upper lip? Where's your British bulldog fighting spirit? Your dogged, relentless trench warfare humour and insouciant bonhomie? If it were down to me I'd have you in front of a firing squad at dawn for dissertion! Get back in line soldier and clean that bloody rifle while you're at it!

All of what you write is possibly true but there are still positions to be won and points to be advanced. There may indeed be very little public interest in the scrapbook, but what has the public interest ever mattered to you with your Sooty the Sock Puppet did it in the laundry with the food blender theory? And Anne Graham may be on sabbatical but she can still write a deathbed confession, can't she? In thirty years time, the truth will be the winner here.

Keep the faith, man. Keep the faith. They said the Geordie nation could not prevail over the Scouse blitzkrieg but we showed them - against all the odds. They don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring!

Fix your bayonet soldier and clean all that mud off yourself, man, and come out fighting!

General Ike Iconoclast
1888th Truth Division

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your debating technique seems to gaslight everything.

When I used the word "replicate", Scott, I meant in the sense of replicating a diary of Jack the Ripper as written by James Maybrick. I can still see no good reason for Mike to have wasted time, effort and money on recreating what you say he already had in his hands. The only real explanation you've offered is that he didn't like the cut out pages at the front of the photograph album but this falls at the first hurdle because the advertisement shows he didn't care if he received a partially used Victorian diary, so he must have been planning to cut the used pages out of it himself.

Now let's talk about gaslighting, shall we?

In your first post to me on the subject, on 9th March, you stated categorically and without qualification that, as at March 1992, "Barrett was either developing, or already had for some time, Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome and would have been challenged to compose such a thing from scratch". When I challenged you about this, you doubled down the next day and told me, again categorically and without qualification, "Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome." The bold highlighting of the word "was" is yours.

Now you reveal that you have no evidence to support any of this and you're desperately scrabbling around trying to find a document which your memory has obviously confused with something else to show that Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome at some point. But there is absolutely no reason for you to have said, as a fact, that in March 1992 Barrett "was either developing, or already had for some time" Korsakoff Syndrome.

Now it's all changed. Could Barrett have been an alcoholic in 1992, you ask. Now it's maybe he had the syndrome, maybe he didn't. All very different from the confident factual assertions you were making to me in March when you were trying to gaslight me into believing something for which you had no evidence.

[rjpalmer]

If it were down to me I'd have you in front of a firing squad at dawn for dissertion!

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea as long as the firing squad was of the circular variety.

And please take care in how you spell desertion, Ike. You should know by now that the Typographical Taliban can be found in these parts though I also notice they don't seem to ever target your side of the barbed wire.

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea as long as the firing squad was of the circular variety.

And please take care in how you spell desertion, Ike. You should know by now that the Typographical Taliban can be found in these parts though I also notice they don't seem to ever target your side of the barbed wire.

Interestingly enough, my Apple Mac inserted 'dissection' before I corrected it incorrectly.

****, I've just realised Im posting on the false dichotomee thread!