google ngrams

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now allow me to assess the three theories:

1. Absolutely ridiculous theory.

Just like everything else related to the Barrett Hoax Theory that puts everything into 11 days after calling the literary agent when you have nothing in hand.

2. A very simple and believable theory. Not ridiculous.

3. This theory which fits into Scott’s theory is also not ridiculous. It’s at least believable as a possibility.

You think there are only 11 days between 9th March 1992, when Mike called a literary agent, and 13th April 1992, when he brought the diary to London?

[rjpalmer]

We have been talking about the diary's use of words or phrases, but what about punctuation?

The diarist seldom used apostrophes.

Below is from a letter by Anne Graham.



Adding unnecessary apostrophes is common enough but leaving them out is less common. The apostrophe key couldn't have been on the fritz; Anne typed "I don't know" immediately afterward.

Just something for your consideration.

[Lombro2]

Well we know Anne’s a Jekkle and Hyde serial killer type.

You’d need blank pages if you want to make a reasonable facsimile. Like a blank watch face where you can write “Rolex” in crayon to match your real Rolex.

Maybe it was 11 days from when he won the “photo album” in a raffle. Who cares? It’s still all done in only a month from scratch (no pun intended).

Scott’s theory is infinitely better.

[rjpalmer]

Scott’s theory is infinitely better.

Yes, it's a no-brainer. Billy and Tony were both freelance writers in the 1980s, profited from the scam, changed their stories multiple times, tried to buy a blank Victorian diary, knew where the Crashaw quote came from, and went on to co-write a biography of Florence Maybrick.

I don't know how I missed it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well we know Anne’s a Jekkle and Hyde serial killer type.

You’d need blank pages if you want to make a reasonable facsimile. Like a blank watch face where you can write “Rolex” in crayon to match your real Rolex.

Maybe it was 11 days from when he won the “photo album” in a raffle. Who cares? It’s still all done in only a month from scratch (no pun intended).

Scott’s theory is infinitely better.

The forgers didn't need to "start from scratch" on 9th March. The diary's text could have been written in draft long before that. But, if they did start from scratch, 34 days was plenty of time to read a small number of books, come up with the story and write it out in longhand

[Lombro2]

Why would you call for a rep and say you got an artifact before you get it?

And why is that scenario much more likely than actually having an artifact, real or fake?

BTW That was a nice maraschino cherry pie. You had to maraschino the cherries to make the pie palatable. But some people will buy it. And eat it while rejecting such pies anywhere else in Ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would you call for a rep and say you got an artifact before you get it?

And why is that scenario much more likely than actually having an artifact, real or fake?

BTW That was a nice maraschino cherry pie. You had to maraschino the cherries to make the pie palatable. But some people will buy it. And eat it while rejecting such pies anywhere else in Ripperology.

I've run this through an English online translator and what you seem to be asking me is why Mike Barrett, as the forger, would have telephoned a literary agent to say he had Jack the Ripper's diary before he'd physically created it.

The answer is, I think, very simple. There is a financial cost to creating a fake Victorian diary. You need to purchase a blank diary, or similar, ink and nibs. Why spend that money if you end up with a diary no-one's interested in publishing?

So step one is to establish there is interest in the product. Step two is to create the product.

That's probably the most efficient way of doing it.

[John Wheat]

I think the very idea of a conman, published writer and his wife purchasing and then writing out a diary purportedly by Jack the Ripper is preposterous.

[Lombro2]

I think the idea of a scrap metal dealer and a purse thief also being a fence, and getting a stolen item and then pretending it wasn't stolen is preposterous.

It's better to believe he would ask someone if they wanted some swampland in Florida and only then would go out and buy some!

[John Wheat]

I think the idea of a scrap metal dealer and a purse thief also being a fence, and getting a stolen item and then pretending it wasn't stolen is preposterous.

It's better to believe he would ask someone if they wanted some swampland in Florida and only then would go out and buy some!

I think this post is totally wrong.

[rjpalmer]

It's better to believe he would ask someone if they wanted some swampland in Florida and only then would go out and buy some!

Careful now. Isn't that Caroline Ann Brown's theory that you're kicking to the curb?

Haven't we been told more than once that Barrett was shown 'the old book' down the boozer and immediately ran home and called the literary agent in London and asked her if she was interested in Jack the Ripper's diary--that is, before Barrett had even obtained ownership of it from Ed Lyons?

It's only a hop, skip, and a jump from Mike not owning the diary to the diary not even existing.

The way I see it, the penniless Barrett was a scammer on a budget.

There's no point in investing in a boat and tackle until you know there's fish in the lake.

[Lombro2]

I think this post is totally wrong.

Then why do you believe it?

[John Wheat]

Then why do you believe it?

I don't.

[Lombro2]

You believe that Mike asked if someone wanted a Ripper Diary and then got a Victorian journal and made it in a month. With no evidence at all. Just a liar with his lies.

And you believe that makes much more sense than someone gave him the Diary first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You believe that Mike asked if someone wanted a Ripper Diary and then got a Victorian journal and made it in a month. With no evidence at all. Just a liar with his lies.

And you believe that makes much more sense than someone gave him the Diary first.

I don't see what the problem is, Lombro. For a 63 page diary, you only need to write a leisurely two pages a day to complete it within a month. That's easy.

There is, of course, the evidence of Barrett having attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in that one-month period. The reason for the blank pages has never been explained other than in respect of a desire to create a forged Victorian diary.

Curiously, Barrett is known to have owned a series of books on English literature in which a very rare quote of Crashaw is found, which is also, by astonishing chance, found in the diary. A quote which Barrett was the only person to identify the source of.

Barrett also owned a book containing two chapters on the Maybrick case.

He is known to have had an interest in true crime.

Barrett's speech can be compared to expressions in the diary. See these two threads in particular:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/11197-mike-barrett-interview-september-1995

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/11202-and-this-is-factual

Anne's handwriting bears certain similarities to the diary handwriting. A few examples can be seen in this thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/11177-diary-handwriting/page3

In addition to concealing from Shirley Harrison the fact that he had attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages, he also concealed from her the fact he had once been a journalist.

He gave Shirley Harrison research notes which concealed his knowledge of Bernard Ryan's book about Maybrick.

Against that, there is no evidence whatsoever of where the diary could have come from, if not created by the Barretts in March/April 1992. No one has ever said they'd seen it before that date. No one claims to have discovered it or to have given it to Barrett. There is no evidence at all of its existence prior to March 1992. As a modern forgery, it couldn't have been found under the nailed floorboards of Battlecrease, as some have suggested. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for a forgery created by a modern forger to have made its way into the hands of Michael Barrett. So to the extent you are saying that someone other than Barrett created it, and gave it to him, there is "no evidence at all" for this proposition.