google ngrams

[Scott Nelson]

The thing is, though, Scott, it doesn't explain why Barrett attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. I often think the simplest explanation is the most likely and what Barrett appears to have been doing was seeking to acquire a Victorian diary in order to fake a Victorian diary. Nothing else makes any sense. So your theory ignores what would appear to be the key evidence which solves the puzzle of the diary. From what I can gather, it seems like you don't think the Barretts could have done it. But why not? Caz can't seem to explain it. Why couldn't it have been the Barretts?

I've covered the red diary purchase on various posts about my 'theory'. People are making it far too complicated than it actually was. I think Barrett already had the photo album with the diary handwriting in it when he made the request for another Victorian Diary. Since Mike probably didn't have anything to do with the original production of the diary, he simply wanted to try his hand at producing his own version and hand that one over to Rupert Crew. Something he could call his own fake. But he attempted to do this after he had already contacted the literary agency to deliver his substitute version, and by so doing, set himself up with a short deadline as far as: 1) Obtaining a suitable blank diary, and 2) Composing his own story of Maybrick as JTR.

I think this was done purely as ego on Mike's part. He didn't want to simply copy the existing text, he wanted to change the story as well, but it turned out to be harder than Barrett thought. Not only was the red diary unsuitable, so with time running out to find another and Mike lacking the ability to revise a long story, he gave up and turned over the diary he already had.

I don't think Anne had anything to do with the diary, other than handing Mike a partially completed cheque for the purchase of the red diary.

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Why not? Who says so? The way this sorry saga has played out over the years, anything could have happened. People and circumstances you never heard about could have been involved. Just saying...

[Lombro2]

Bob Gimlin had a book on Bigfoot.

Joseph Smith had a Bible.

Who would offer those as evidence of them being associated with a hoax? If anyone said either about them, like you do about Mike, I'd have to seriously believe what they had was real.

[John Wheat]

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.

Yes obviously. See Herlock's post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've covered the red diary purchase on various posts about my 'theory'. People are making it far too complicated than it actually was. I think Barrett already had the photo album with the diary handwriting in it when he made the request for another Victorian Diary. Since Mike probably didn't have anything to do with the original production of the diary, he simply wanted to try his hand at producing his own version and hand that one over to Rupert Crew. Something he could call his own fake. But he attempted to do this after he had already contacted the literary agency to deliver his substitute version, and by so doing, set himself up with a short deadline as far as: 1) Obtaining a suitable blank diary, and 2) Composing his own story of Maybrick as JTR.

I think this was done purely as ego on Mike's part. He didn't want to simply copy the existing text, he wanted to change the story as well, but it turned out to be harder than Barrett thought. Not only was the red diary unsuitable, so with time running out to find another and Mike lacking the ability to revise a long story, he gave up and turned over the diary he already had.

I don't think Anne had anything to do with the diary, other than handing Mike a partially completed cheque for the purchase of the red diary.

Hi Scott,

Are you sure it's not you who is making this more complicated than it probably was?

You agree that Barrett wanted to create a fake Victorian diary in March 1992, so why couldn't he have obtained an old photograph album after the 1891 red diary proved to be unsuitable and got his wife to write out the text in longhand after obtaining some nibs and ink? Why does there need to have been an earlier version of the fake? What is it about the document we have that makes you think the Barretts couldn't have done it on their own?

And do you really think for one second that Barrett had the slightest ability to conceal his handwriting? Wouldn't he have had to ask Anne for help with his plan that you envisage?

Basically, the thing I'm not getting is why you think your theory is any more likely than what would appear to be the far more simple and straightforward theory that the Barretts did it. Perhaps you can elaborate to help me understand that part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not? Who says so? The way this sorry saga has played out over the years, anything could have happened. People and circumstances you never heard about could have been involved. Just saying...

I don't understand what you are asking me. There is "no evidence at all" that someone other than Barrett created the forgery and gave it to him, is there? The trouble with the approach of "anything could have happened" is that it allows the imagination to run riot. Why isn't the most simple and straightforward solution to the puzzle that the Barretts created it? Why doesn't that answer every question about how it was created? Why does it need Billy Graham and Tony Devereux to have done it?

[Lombro2]

Why does it need to be Michael and Anne Barrett?