Why I find the diary implausible

[Lechmere]

I'm not aware that research has shown it to be 'quite untrue'.
The Robertson connection - where and when, properly pinning her down and resolving the verbal accounts with the records - seems murky to me. That's why I equivocated slightly with the expression 'no real connection', rather than a more explicit 'absolutely no connection'.
The office address is in the City was relatively close to the East End but how many City workers do you think ventured further east than Aldgate pump? And did he ever go to that office anyway?

[pinkmoon]

I think maybrick makes a very good suspect his addiction to arsenic could explain the killers boldness

[caz]

The likelihood that the culprit was a Liverpudlian merchant with no real connection to the area is extremely thin.

Hi Lech,

Well it would be extremely thin if you were right about the Liverpudlian merchant in question having 'no real connection' to the area.

With so many decent arguments against Maybrick as Jack, I will never understand the need to keep bolstering one's case with stuff that basic research showed many years ago to be quite untrue.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Tony Devereux's daughters always vigorously denied that their father had anything at all to do with the 'Diary'. He died shortly after Barrett announced he was in possession of it, so couldn't be interviewed.

Hi Graham,

It's worse than that. Tony Devereux died before Mike announced he had the diary. Tony died on August 8th, 1991, and Mike didn't call Doreen Montgomery until March 9th, 1992, seven months later.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

I have got no problem with maybrick been jack the ripper or the diary itself.What I have got a problem with is where it's come from and please don't suggest I read Mr Feldmans book because I have and that convinced me that the diary is bogus.

[The Good Michael]

That he makes no effort to describe the murderous events in any detail is another give away. As is his sticking to just the conventional populist story.

Absolutely. Nothing is learned about the murders except that Maybrick did them and that he traveled back and forth to London in order to kill. One would have expected to have discovered a few answers to niggling questions in the "diary", but no.

Mike

[Lechmere]

The likelihood that the culprit was a Liverpudlian merchant with no real connection to the area is extremely thin.
That this man was the subject of a famous murder case and lived near a district called Whitechapel leads to a rolling of the eyes.
That his 'confession' doesn't match his handwriting and was found in the back of a book with the front pages torn out stinks.

That he makes no effort to describe the murderous events in any detail is another give away. As is his sticking to just the conventional populist story.

[pinkmoon]

I originally thought the diary was true or should I say I think I wanted it to be true .After meeting Mr Barrett and standing back and looking at the basic facts I formed a few conclusions.None of the conclusions are earth shattering but they do lead me to the conclusion that diary is faked.I read Mr Feldmans book which I found very entertaining but this reinforced my opinion (and I might be wrong) that the diary is a fake.I would love diary to be true because it would resolve this most interesting and fascinating case then again if it was every solved I would have to find a proper hobby

[The Good Michael]

This thread was intended as a place to discuss issues with the diary that are not provenance, forensic evidence about the ink and scrapbook, etc. - but issues with the actual content.

Clearly, there was no interest from forum members apart from myself, because it quickly turned into another discussion of potential hoaxers, character discussions about hoaxer suspects, etc.

I'm very disappointed with what's happened to this thread.

Too bad you're disappointed. Provenance and content are connected. Nothing you can do about that.

Mike

[Graham]

This thread was intended as a place to discuss issues with the diary that are not provenance, forensic evidence about the ink and scrapbook, etc. - but issues with the actual content.

Clearly, there was no interest from forum members apart from myself, because it quickly turned into another discussion of potential hoaxers, character discussions about hoaxer suspects, etc.

I'm very disappointed with what's happened to this thread.

Unfortunately, any discussion of the Diary will inevitably lead to a discussion of its possible provenance(s) and the personalities involved with it. All this and more was discussed at excruciating length on the old boards, with generally the same results. I'm sorry if you feel that subsequent posters have gone off-thread, but that's the way it goes.

IMHO there are too many 'Diary Threads' as it is.

G

[pinkmoon]

sorry if I have upset you I had no intention of doing that I didn't join case book to upset anyone.It is impossible to discuss diary in a serious way without coming back to the main most important point where has it come from .

[Damaso Marte]

Starting a new thread on a subject that already has two threads dealing with it...I find inplausible!

This thread was intended as a place to discuss issues with the diary that are not provenance, forensic evidence about the ink and scrapbook, etc. - but issues with the actual content.

Clearly, there was no interest from forum members apart from myself, because it quickly turned into another discussion of potential hoaxers, character discussions about hoaxer suspects, etc.

I'm very disappointed with what's happened to this thread.

[spyglass]

Starting a new thread on a subject that already has two threads dealing with it...I find inplausible!

[pinkmoon]

Yes Mr Barrett did make a lot of money but the people around him made a lot more.The point I'm trying to make when the police came sniffing the situation was such that all the people involved had to do was point finger at a dead man .Don't forget Tony the man from the pub who Barrett claimed gave him diary was ill at the time and died soon afterwards as well .Even if the diary was proven a fake and police wanted to charge any one because of the story concerning Billy Graham which was backed up by Mrs Anne barrett meant they were all in the clear.When someone is investigated by the police and not charged it dosnt mean they are innocent what it means is the crown prosecution service thinks there is less than a sixty per cent chance of obtaining a conviction.

[Graham]

Hi PM,

I'm still not sure I'm with you on this. As far as the police were concerned, their sole interest lay in the possibility that some person or persons were attempting to make money out of a fraudulent document, i.e., he, she or they were deliberately attempting to convince someone else that the 'Diary' was genuine and was therefore valuable and that they were attempting to profit by it. Now I think about it, I believe that the Fraud Squad's interview with Mike Barrett was actually part of their investigation into someone else involved with the 'Diary'. That is, they were not actually about to accuse Mike Barrett of fraud or anything else. They just wanted to hear his side of things....

It's like if you have a family bible, and in it is the signature 'Oliver Cromwell'. If you genuinely believe that that signature really is that of Oliver Cromwell, then you would (hopefully) set about obtaining expert opinion regarding it, and act accordingly as you deemed appropriate. If you decided to sell it and make a bob or two, you'd advise any prospective buyer that your bible and the signature had been examined by, and authenticated by, whichever expert you chose to do the job. If on the other hand, you yourself had scrawled 'Oliver Cromwell' on the flyleaf of your bible, that in itself would be no crime at all, unless and until you attempted to convince a third party that it really was Cromwell's signature, that is was valuable, and that you would be prepared to accept £X for the bible. That would most certainly be considered rather naughty.

Anne Barrett, so far as I'm aware, never actually attempted to make money out of the 'Diary'. According to Feldman, it was she who eventually claimed (under intense pressure from Feldman) that the 'Diary' had been in her father's possession since about 1940, which in itself is no crime. Her father never claimed that independently as far as I'm aware, and certainly made no attempt to profit by his claimed possession of the 'Diary'. Anne told Feldman that the 'Diary' had been known to her father since 1940, and had been secretly stored by her until she decided, for whatever reason, to pass it to her husband. That would constitute no grounds whatsoever for investigation of Anne. What Mike did with the 'Diary' once he was in possession of it was really his own business and his own choice.

Mike did make some money out of the 'Diary', but the police evidently didn't consider this to be illicit.

I'm going to have to get my Diary and Maybrick books back from the bloke I lent them to...need to refresh my aged and failing memory.

Graham