Who were they?

[caz]

Why would Mike care if a "surrogate" diary had writing on some of the pages, or was full, or had a date of 1891 or anything else that was inconsistent with his scrapbook, if all he was attempting to do was pass it off as the book EL was supposed to have sold him?

Hi Scotty,

Mike cared enough to ask for at least 20 blank pages, so I suspect he wanted a neutered version of the "old book", with some pages removed [which he could do himself] and only blank pages surviving, in case anyone missed the one signed by Jack the Ripper and got a tip-off that Mike had recently acquired a similar looking old book.

In any event, he forgot that size matters.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I should have asked you this yesterday, RJ. Where exactly is it on the record that Mike said to Doreen, "I need to go to York"?

Hi Ike,

Let's follow Mike and RJ's example and 'buy some time' in York, shall we?

It was Doreen who mentioned this upcoming trip in a letter to Shirley, dated 10th March 1992, saying that 'Our Ripper friend' had promised to get back in contact about the diary on his return.

Like RJ, I suspect it was Mike's way of buying more time, but I don't buy RJ's reasoning for why he needed it. I don't believe Mike was in the process of sourcing an unused or partly used 1880s "diary" to house a hoax he would first need to bully his wife into handwriting for him, and then stop her burning it on the kitchen stove when she twigs what he plans to do with it.

Mike didn't leave Doreen a contact number, so he could take his sweet time and only call again if and when he was good and ready. Why would he renew contact with Doreen "post-York" without having made any progress with this hoax? If he doesn't even have a physical diary to describe if asked, it would be a pointless exercise discussing his availability for showing it to her in person, only to have to think up fresh excuses for further delays if he still has nothing to deliver. He might be searching indefinitely for the right book, for all he knows. If and when he manages to find one and get the hoax transferred, there would only be one shot to get it right. Any fatal continuity errors, such as a sentence accidentally repeated here or skipped there, which could not be corrected invisibly, might require a third book and starting all over again. That would be the time to get back in touch with Doreen and arrange a meeting, with fulsome apologies for some personal or family drama cropping up immediately on his "return from York". It's not as if Mike was ever stuck for one of those, whether real or imagined.

As with Lechmere, supposedly admitting to a 'time gap', which gave him the opportunity to commit murder in Buck's Row, so we have Mike Barrett, with his own time gap while "in York", supposedly giving him the opportunity to get on with creating his hoax. But then he blows it by getting back in touch with Doreen too soon, with nothing to show for the time gained: 'no diary, no diary...'

On the other hand, Mike may simply need a bit more time to persuade Eddie that he can find the right buyer for his "old book" or, if he is already looking after it for that purpose, more time to study its contents and, with luck, identify Jack the Ripper before confirming his availability for meeting Doreen. After all, Michael 'Williams' has just given her the false impression that he has had Jack the Ripper's diary in his possession for several months.

On 10th March 1992, Doreen writes to Shirley to report that Michael and his wife have decided to entrust them with the diary to check it out.
'So we must wait and see what happens. He's off to York on Thursday or Friday, and promises to make contact again, on his return.' [After Eddie helps out in Dodd's house on Monday 9th March, he goes absent from work without explanation from the Friday, when the ongoing contract for which he was originally taken on in December 1991, resumes. He could have joined Mike "in York".]

On 3rd April [just three days after Mike's theoretical auction find on 31st March] Doreen is again writing to Shirley, this time looking forward to hearing about their arrangements with Michael Barrett.
'I could organise a lunch I suppose…'
'But then if you weren't going to be doing it until the week after next, that Friday is in fact Good Friday…'

On 8th April 1992 [even as the diary is supposedly still in the process of being created] Doreen writes a letter addressed this time to Michael Barrett, to confirm their meeting for 11.30-12 on Monday 13th, with herself, Mike, Shirley and Sally Evemy. Doreen suggests taking a photocopy of the diary at her office to avoid the original going into any other hands.

This does suggest rather strongly that Mike was happy to renew his contact with Doreen following his "return from York", using his real name, and to begin discussing arrangements for London, without yet having obtained the equivalent of an unused or partly used 1880s "diary" from which to create Maybrick's diary.

York was almost certainly a lie told by Mike to buy himself time, but how much time did it buy him, and to what end, exactly, if he got back to Doreen sans a diary?

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Why would Mike care if a "surrogate" diary had writing on some of the pages, or was full, or had a date of 1891 or anything else that was inconsistent with his scrapbook, if all he was attempting to do was pass it off as the book EL was supposed to have sold him?

If I could give you a virtual high five Scotty I would. Bang on the button.

[Scott Nelson]

Why would Mike care if a "surrogate" diary had writing on some of the pages, or was full, or had a date of 1891 or anything else that was inconsistent with his scrapbook, if all he was attempting to do was pass it off as the book EL was supposed to have sold him?

[caz]

If Mike is thinking along the lines of having a substitute for a suspected item of stolen property - which he evidently thinks of as a diary - it wouldn't make any sense to get one with only used pages, which would have no possible relevance to what had actually been stolen, or for the original owner, whoever that might turn out to be. With at least 20 blank pages to play with, Mike can adapt whatever he is sent in whatever way he likes, as long as he first removes any used pages. His best bet would be to remove enough pages anyway - used or blank - to represent the section containing diary entries, and then leave the remaining blank pages blank [as they are in the original], rendering it harmless and of no possible value to anyone. If asked, he can show this one and say it was like that when he got it. There would be no evidence of it having contained Jack the Ripper's diary - priceless or otherwise - for the simple reason that it hadn't.

Mike's sole aim would be to get hold of the original and keep hold of it for long enough to show it to Doreen when the time comes. Her advice to keep its existence between them for the time being would play into his hands. What happens in London will stay in London for now, and what happens in Liverpool will stay in Liverpool for now. Mike doesn't know on 9th March 1992 if or when the "old book" will be missed, but if it is missed, it's more likely to be sooner than later and most likely somewhere in Liverpool. If he is conning Eddie out of it, and anyone is directed to Mike's door, he can show them a harmless blank Victorian diary with some pages removed. That's why he has to ask for enough blank pages: they will need to be left blank. Used ones are no good to him.

We know from what Mike was sent that it was almost certainly not what he was expecting, regardless of his motives for requesting it.

Anyway, this is my current thinking on the matter, so don't believe RJ when he next repeats his claim that I currently entertain or favour any alternative theory. What is in the past, regarding my thinking, stays in the past until I say otherwise. I don't know why RJ can't or won't process this, but it's not helpful.

RJ recently argued that if Eddie really did find the diary, he would have considered it 'priceless' and not let it anywhere near Mike Barrett's grubby, unemployed and penniless paws.

I still don't understand RJ's reasoning here, unless he secretly believes that a Battlecrease provenance for this same diary [for there is no other] would somehow elevate it from a worthless piece of modern crap to anything approaching a 'priceless' artefact.

If the Barretts are ruled out as its creators, how does that change the diary and what RJ thinks of its worth?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I just noticed from one of Keith’s posts /emails that there is some inside info which hasn’t been made public and won’t be for a while. So I think it’s pointless to debate the diary and it would best to hold off the debate until such time this info is made public, no??

[Abby Normal]

OMG. what part of partly used, don't you understand?

The Ad clearly says unused . You said it didn’t say that in your post.

[erobitha]

Does anyone here know the original name of the Poste House - I mean the name of that public house in 1888?


Answer: the Muck Midden

deleted

[FISHY1118]

Oh dear ,so the Diary is a fake and James Maybrick really isnt Jack the Ripper ? Oh thats so sad . Off to the pub for a drink then .

[rjpalmer]

I have so few chances to read Keith Skinner's thoughts on the Maybrick Hoax that I would kick myself if I didn't respond to the following while the door hits me on the much-deserved backside.

It won't matter if I see the response or not. Others might like to see it.

If the diary came into Mike's possession via EL between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992, then there is no evidence that EL told Mike of its origins?

Isn't this theorizing on top of a theory? One can equally state there is no evidence this transaction ever took place, and Eddie Lyons denies it did. Indeed, he denies he even knew Barrett.

But, for the sake of argument, if this did happen, and as you say, there is no evidence that Eddie told Mike the origins, and thus Mike had no information at all to work with, then why would Mike think a blank or partially blank diary would do him any good as a surrogate? How is this plausible? And why would Mike think that admitting to buying a blank diary from a man in a pub just before heading to London with The Diary of Jack the Ripper would be in his best interest?

One could characterize Barrett as a fool to 'mould' this theory into something slightly more palatable, and we have seen a long and consistent campaign by Caroline Brown and Tom Mitchell to paint Barrett in this light, but would this not go against your own warning of painting the dramatis personae into 'one dimensional' figures for the sake of believing what one wants to believe?

Shirley Harrison has written that Barrett was 'far from stupid.' Nick Warren had the same impression, although I don't know on what he based this. Mike's old editor at Celebrity spoke well of him. Anne Graham is recorded saying that she found Mike 'intelligent' when they first courted. Chris Jones, who has also met Barrett, characterized him as a man of 'great imagination.' Why would Barrett have thought this would work? Why would he have even thought to do it? The idea fails to be plausible on multiple levels. But I will leave it at that.

Where we do have some eye witness testimony is from Paul Begg, Martin Howells and Paul Feldman who reported how noticeably stunned Mike was when they all went to Battlecrease House in early 1993 making their own enquiries and learned that electrical work had recently been done in the house.

Best Wishes

Keith

For the record, what is the source for Martin Howell's 'eyewitness' testimony? What did Paul Begg recall?

The reason I ask about Martin Howells specifically is the only claim I have seen is from Jay Hartley, who did not name his source, writing on the Jones/Dolgin thread on JTR Forums (Post #209) that Martin Howells said that Mike turned "as white as a sheet" and "had to go outside" on learning of the electrical work.

Can you confirm that Hartley is accurate? Or, if Hartley reads this, can he confirm this is accurately reported and not poetic fiction?

I ask because Paul Feldman, in his book, said nothing about Mike 'turning white.'

Indeed, Feldman reports that Mike was already outside Dodd's house (at the bottom of the front porch) so how could Mike have needed to go outside?

Feldman merely wrote that Mike 'staggered' at the news.



I think you'll realize the need to clear this up, since conflicting eyewitness testimony won't do your theory any favors, if indeed you have a theory.

Could Mike not have merely slipped off the porch? He was a drinker after all.

It was David Barrat who wondered if Mike just lost his footing and far too much is being read into it. It isn't much of a peg to hang a provenance on. I think the Phil Sugdens of the world will require something a little more substantial than a Scouser turning a whiter shade of pale.

That's almost certainly it from me. Regards.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Great posting RJ ,P.I ,

THE MAYBRICK IS A FAKE, LETS DRINK TO THAT.

Does anyone here know the original name of the Poste House - I mean the name of that public house in 1888?


Answer: the Muck Midden

[FISHY1118]

Great posting RJ ,P.I ,

THE MAYBRICK IS A FAKE, LETS DRINK TO THAT.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see I am now being referred to as 'so-called PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR'.

Here are extracts from an article about the so-called scrapbook, just in case any new readers are inclined to believe what so-called erobitha has written about it:


Around 40 years before, in 1957, the so-called diaries of Benito Mussolini were found, and not just one diary, but thirty. At the time, the sheer quantity of diaries made people believe it couldn’t be a forgery. It turns out they all had been forged.

Again in 1983, billionaire Rupert Murdoch bought the rights and publication rights to 60 diaries by Adolf Hitler. Again the Hitler Diaries were claimed to be authentic, but it turned out that they were not Hitler’s diaries, and they were only 60 excellently crafted forgeries. Was this yet again a forgery and a hoax?

At some point, the man who brought Jack the Ripper’s diary to public attention, Michael Barrett, told writers at the Liverpool Post that he had 100% forged the diary. He said his wife did the writing while he dictated to her.

When investigated closely, the content of Jack the Ripper’s diary, many of the detailed descriptions of the five murders and the crime scenes were taken from press reports and later literature about Jack the Ripper murders. An example is the description of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, whose limbs and some organs were described by the press disturbingly as “hung around the walls like Christmas decorations”.

The diary of Jack the Ripper describes where and how he put her limbs and organs in places about the room and how he cut off her breasts and “kissed them for a while” before leaving them on the bedside table. The descriptions are incredibly graphic, but there is nothing here that couldn’t be drawn and embellished from the rumors about Kelly’s mutilation.

In reality, according to what police records survived the Blitz in the Second World War, and based on the crime scene photos, the diaries describe a different crime scene. Yes, she was disemboweled and had organs removed, but they weren’t strewn across the room like some kind of macabre confetti or Christmas decorations like the diary depicts.

Some of the removed organs were placed beneath her head, other organs and viscera were placed on the bed where she was found near her feet, thighs, and some material from her stomach and thighs was spread to a nearby bedside table. One breast was found under Kelly’s head, and the other was located underneath the body on the bed. Not on the bedside table like the diary said.

The inaccuracies in the description of the brutal slaying of Mary Jane Kelly casts a large shadow of doubt on the authenticity of Jack the Ripper’s diary. If it is supposed to be written by Jack the Ripper, it should have intimate knowledge of exactly how her body was left, and it would match how the police found and recorded the scene. There is a public house mentioned in one entry called the “Post House,” but the pub had a completely different name when Jack the Ripper was active.

https://www.historicmysteries.com/ripper-diary/

[rjpalmer]

No, no worries, Mr. Bundy.

Lord Orsam didn't mention you. He limited his commentary to Tom's theory of the maroon doppelganger. He did refer to 'The Major,' but his tone was not unduly harsh.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Meanwhile, Tom has been changing his theory by the day, and I have received a humorous response via email from Lord Orsom about this.

Unfortunately, since I can't share it, you'll simply have to imagine it.

Good luck with your theories and good luck in convincing the public.

Doesn't involve me does it? I can't wait until October to hear it? Hell, RJ and Orsam suffer me as a fool, which to be fair I am, but if I've kick started the diary debate, I'll take the joint criticism with good humour.