The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Scott Nelson]

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.

I didn't try to change anything. I know there is some mention somewhere of KS associated with Barrett. It could have developed at any time. If the diagnosis was incorrect, then Barrett was displaying the effects of mental impairment from other causes. Alcoholism would be a reasonable guess, but I remember KS being documented for some reason. Someone must remember.

And don't accuse me of gaslighting. You're the champion there. You've been here now, for what, less than 10 years and already 21,000+ posts? You've got your nose into everything under the sun. Lots of time on your hands. No time to hold down a full-time job, or what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And don't accuse me of gaslighting. You're the champion there. You've been here now, for what, less than 10 years and already 21,000+ posts? You've got your nose into everything under the sun. Lots of time on your hands. No time to hold down a full-time job, or what?

I will certainly never accuse you of gaslighting.... if you don't try to gaslight me. But you've literally just admitted that your former categoric and unqualified statement that Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome, and suffered from it in 1992, was based on nothing more than "some mention somewhere" that you think you remember of some kind of associationof KS with Barrett, possibly by someone who didn't know the facts, and who managed to gaslight you, which you felt the need to repeat to me, so that, had I not been brave enough to challenge you, as many others might not have been, I would never have discovered the hollow foundation on which your previously confident assertion rests.

So you’re reduced to personal insults about how long I’ve been here and how many posts I’ve made and you imply that I can’t hold down a job. Well, not that it’s any of your business, I’ve worked all of my life until around 8 years ago when I became a Carer for my terminally ill father. I ‘held down’ the job of caring for him quite competently until he died five years ago. I’m now a carer for my mother and (part-time) for an aunt whilst doing some part-time work from home. And as I work from home I get more time than most to post. I hope that this is a satisfactory explanation or would you like greater detail?

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

[Scott Nelson]

You believe that Anne Graham supplied Tony Devereux with an old family photograph album--so am I right in assuming that you also believe that Anne did this knowing full-well that Tony intended to use it to fake the Diary of Jack the Ripper? Thus, Anne was an accomplice or co-conspirator both before and after the fact?

Do you believe Mike was also 'in on it,' or do you think he was their mutual dupe?

One strange aspect is your theory is the hurdle I still can't climb over. When the whole thing went pear-shaped in the summer of 1994 as Barrett started confessing that he was the author, wouldn't it have been rather strange for Anne--if she did what you said she did--to come forward and claim previous ownership of the photo album?

That would be sailing rather close to the wind, wouldn't it? Wouldn't she have been far better off just to keep her mouth shut and distance herself from the album?

That's the point I keep coming back to. If Anne wasn't intimately involved, I can see no reason why she made herself the center of attention and led everyone on a merry dance away from Barrett's secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit.

Personally, I am 100% satisfied that Barrett demonstrated inside knowledge of the diary's creation. If he wasn't the co-author of it, then he was one hell of an amateur detective and a crazy one at that.

Hi RJ,

My theory actually is that Billy Graham knew Tony Devereux and supplied the photo album to 'the group'. After Devereux's death, Billy gave the completed photo album with diary writing to Anne, who turned it over to Mike. So, Anne would have only known after the fact, and I think that was the extent of Anne's involvement initially.

Mike may or may not have known about what was planned. If he did know, he was likely on the periphery of the hoax. I'm not sure why Anne would later come out with her "in the family for years" story. As you suggest, it doesn't fit that Anne would implicate herself or her father.

If he was in the loop, Mike could have been informed on some parts of the diary creation, or tasked with running small errands for materials, but that may have been it. Personally, I don't think he had any involvement in the physical creation of the diary or even knew about it beforehand. But what knowledge he later had about it resulted from talking to Devereux before he died. I don't believe that Devereux refused to tell Mike anything about the diary after it was handed over to him, as has been claimed. But one thing Mike wasn't told was who the story was about. Fortunately for him, the electricians provided an answer.

I think Mike's mindset was haywire from well before getting the diary, so I've put the different affidavit/confessional events aside in my theory. That may be a mistake, I'm not really sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will certainly never accuse you of gaslighting.... if you don't try to gaslight me. But you've literally just admitted that your former categoric and unqualified statement that Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome, and suffered from it in 1992, was based on nothing more than "some mention somewhere" that you think you remember of some kind of associationof KS with Barrett, possibly by someone who didn't know the facts, and who managed to gaslight you, which you felt the need to repeat to me, so that, had I not been brave enough to challenge you, as many others might not have been, I would never have discovered the hollow foundation on which your previously confident assertion rests.

So you’re reduced to personal insults about how long I’ve been here and how many posts I’ve made and you imply that I can’t hold down a job. Well, not that it’s any of your business, I’ve worked all of my life until around 8 years ago when I became a Carer for my terminally ill father. I ‘held down’ the job of caring for him quite competently until he died five years ago. I’m now a carer for my mother and (part-time) for an aunt whilst doing some part-time work from home. And as I work from home I get more time than most to post. I hope that this is a satisfactory explanation or would you like greater detail?

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

Just for clarity, that should read “a little bit peeved..”

[Scott Nelson]

I’ve been accused on here of being a ‘Johnnie-Come’Lately’ and now you question me in this insulting way. Is it a case of some people thinking that there is an established ‘in crowd?’ People who have been members for years who get a little bit perved when they get questioned by some (to them) newcomer?

It's because your questions have mostly been addressed long before by others in response to other posters having the same questions. It's tiresome having to reinvent the wheel all the time unless one is a whizz with the search engine (I'm not).

BTW, 'perved' is fine. I get that way all the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's because your questions have mostly been addressed long before by others in response to other posters having the same questions. It's tiresome having to reinvent the wheel all the time unless one is a whizz with the search engine (I'm not).

BTW, 'perved' is fine. I get that way all the time.

I strongly disagree that I've been asking questions which have "mostly been addressed long before by others." It seems to me you've fallen for some anti-Herlock propaganda put about by people who either can't or don't want to answer my questions, many of which remain unaddressed and unanswered to this day. I'm not sure if you've read everything that’s been posted, Scott, but there have been multiple examples of me successfully challenging things that have been stated on here about the diary as long established facts. Did you not notice, for example, that two supposed recordings of things Michael Barrett is supposed to have said, which are supposed to undermine his account, cannot be heard on the tapes? It's only because I've been asking questions that the issue has even been spotted. I'm still waiting for answers. Ike's gone totally silent on the issue. Caz has yet to respond to my questions about it.

Also, people's views and opinions change. Things that have been said many years ago may not hold true today. Have you not noticed that when Roger quotes things Caz said on the past that she tells him, in the strongest terms, that she doesn't necessarily believe the same thing today?

Above all, we should welcome and embrace the questions of new people to a debate because they may see things from a new perspective and challenge long held assumptions. In your own case, for example you appear to have been labouring under the false belief for many years that Michael Barrett was diagnosed with KS syndrome and was suffering from it in 1992 which would have prevented him from forging the diary's text. No-one had, apparently, ever challenged you on this before. It's only when I did so that you started looking around old issues of Ripperana in an attempt to locate a half-remembered document which probably doesn't exist. Suddenly you're not so sure. I’ve done this myself on topics where I’ve assumed that I’m remembering correctly. That's the benefit a new person can sometimes bring.