Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

Maybe your an old Assistant Commissioner ?

Fair point, actually.

[Scott Nelson]

So why would Eddie be trying to sell a diary given to Mike by Tony?

I think Mike already had the Diary when he met with Eddie on March 9th. Eddie never had physical possession of the Diary, but he did supply Mike with a provenance after just having come from Dodd's house.

[erobitha]

I think Mike already had the Diary when he met with Eddie on March 9th. Eddie never had physical possession of the Diary, but he did supply Mike with a provenance after just having come from Dodd's house.

Then why would Eddie attempt to sell the diary himself?

[Iconoclast]

I think Mike already had the Diary when he met with Eddie on March 9th. Eddie never had physical possession of the Diary, but he did supply Mike with a provenance after just having come from Dodd's house.

So the blindingly problematic issue with that little idea, Scotty, is that in all the numerous times Barrett tried to convince the world that he was a master forger and had created the text of the Victorian scrapbook and in all the myriad versions of his spectacular subterfuge that he gave and as sometimes desperate as he was to cripple Paul Feldman's scrapbook-related enterprises, he never once, not once, not even vaguely, not even vaguely tangentially mentioned that he had thought to bring such an escapade to the world BECAUSE of its timeliness with the work done on Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992.

That is a massive problem with your theory because if your theory were true then Mike Barrett was prompted to act on March 9, 1992, by the unexpected discovery that Eddie Lyons had been working on the floorboard at Battlecrease House that morning, and yet he never once mentioned it subsequently. Not once. Not ever.

If your theory were true, it should have been the very first words out of his mouth when he was in full confessional mode. So either you're wrong or else he kept that particular powder dry for a later date which never arrived, not even in 1999 at the Cloak & Dagger Club, and not even in the early 2000s when interviewed for the last time (by the Inside Story team).

Honestly, everyone, stop coming-up with unsustainable versions of Mike Barrett's involvement in the production of the text of the Victorian scrapbook. None of them hold any water except in the land of special pleading populated mainly by the likes of Orsam and Palmer and their dreadfully ill-read acolytes.

Ike

[John Wheat]

So the blindingly problematic issue with that little idea, Scotty, is that in all the numerous times Barrett tried to convince the world that he was a master forger and had created the text of the Victorian scrapbook and in all the myriad versions of his spectacular subterfuge that he gave and as sometimes desperate as he was to cripple Paul Feldman's scrapbook-related enterprises, he never once, not once, not even vaguely, not even vaguely tangentially mentioned that he had thought to bring such an escapade to the world BECAUSE of its timeliness with the work done on Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992.

That is a massive problem with your theory because if your theory were true then Mike Barrett was prompted to act on March 9, 1992, by the unexpected discovery that Eddie Lyons had been working on the floorboard at Battlecrease House that morning, and yet he never once mentioned it subsequently. Not once. Not ever.

If your theory were true, it should have been the very first words out of his mouth when he was in full confessional mode. So either you're wrong or else he kept that particular powder dry for a later date which never arrived, not even in 1999 at the Cloak & Dagger Club, and not even in the early 2000s when interviewed for the last time (by the Inside Story team).

Honestly, everyone, stop coming-up with unsustainable versions of Mike Barrett's involvement in the production of the text of the Victorian scrapbook. None of them hold any water except in the land of special pleading populated mainly by the likes of Orsam and Palmer and their dreadfully ill-read acolytes.

Ike

Ridiculous post. It's highly likely the Barretts wrote the diary.

[StevenOwl]

Ridiculous post. It's highly likely the Barretts wrote the diary.

Equally ridiculous post. There's no more proof it was written in 1992 than there is it was written in 1888. The truth is, after 30 years of research, we still don't know who wrote it or why.

[Abby Normal]

everyone knows who wrote it.

[Abby Normal]

Well I am for one am a master of grammar.....

Ike

That's sig material right there! lol

[Iconoclast]

That's sig material right there! lol

Yes indeed. They do say that pride comes before a fall but I do feel that my errant Apple Mac auto-completion facility (or is it auto-correct?) was somewhat more culpable than I.

Always read what you’re putting your name to, I guess.

[Abby Normal]

Yes indeed. They do say that pride comes before a fall but I do feel that my errant Apple Mac auto-completion facility (or is it auto-correct?) was somewhat more culpable than I.

Always read what you’re putting your name to, I guess.

no worries dude, just busting your chops. im probably the worst grammar person on here.

[John Wheat]

Equally ridiculous post. There's no more proof it was written in 1992 than there is it was written in 1888. The truth is, after 30 years of research, we still don't know who wrote it or why.

Garbage. Only an idiot would believe the diary was written by James Maybrick.

[Iconoclast]

Garbage. Only an idiot would believe the diary was written by James Maybrick.

Wheato,

Just a polite reminder that not everyone values being called an idiot, especially by someone whose standard opening to every sentence is “Ridiculous”.

Personally, I’m not that fussed but I think it is House Rules to impugn the written (if you really have to), not the writer.

I know. Ridiculous, eh?

[caz]

Hi Ike,

Sadly, I have come to realize that you must be posting deliberate drivel to illicit a response, thus keeping the whole charade going as you try to reach the still obtainable 10,000 posts before the Grassy Knoll Gang gets there first.

Much of what you write can't possibly be written in good faith.

Take this:



What evidence can you provide that Barrett and Graham handed in a wad of illiterate and poorly produced 'mince' to Celebrity Magazine that had to be revised by a professional editor?

Let's see it.

Are we to believe that after all these years—nearly four decades---you have chased down the editor of the magazine (he retired 13 years ago—I checked) who had a clear recollection of this, and passed on this information to you and/or Robert Smith, who also tried to pawn-off this piece of pork pie?

If so, let's see the correspondence.

It's moonshine. It’s based on nothing but wish-fulfillment. Desire--that lubrication that keeps the diary machine going round and round.

On page 150 of Ripper Diary (a book you claim to have read) we get the following account from Barrett's old editor, David Burness, as furnished to Shirley Harrison in 1994.

"Barrett's editor at D.C. Thomason, David Burness, confirmed that Barrett was a valued contributor: 'As I told you, Mike was always very reliable in the time he worked for me, I'm so sorry that his life seems to have gone so desperately wrong."

Not a whisper about an incapable lout who turned in a wad of complete shite that had to be re-written by the editorial staff, and we can all assure ourselves that Shirley Harrison would have been utterly delighted to report this had it been the case.

You--Tom--Thomas--Soothsayer--Ike--were not there and have no real information or insight to offer the forums on this topic.

And you are not only insulting Barrett--you are also insulting Anne Graham.

The lucky thing is that we have an opportunity to see for ourselves examples of the Barretts' professionalism before their work ever reached the awaiting hands of an eager editor. We can start by your kindly uploading of the Barretts' 29-page typescript of the diary to this website. While some might argue it is not evidence of their skill as writers, I think we can all agree that it would at least give us some inkling of their professionalism.

Also of interest would be the report on Victorian laundries that Anne wrote for Feldman in 1995. Martin Fido, on reading this, "declared himself 'flabbergasted' that this was not the work of a professional researcher" (Ripper Diary, p. 150).

That doesn't sound like someone who turned in a wad of unprofessional 'mince’ that had to be further corrected and rewritten by an editor.

Indeed, on seeing Anne's unedited work, Fido was convinced that Anne could have 'concocted' the Maybrick-as-Ripper idea with 'one hand tied behind her back.' (Ibid)

This from Martin Fido, Professor of Literature, writer, and broadcaster of Murder After Dark, who over his long career must have read hundreds of student papers.

Let Bruce Robinson stick that in his hash pipe and smoke it.

And ultimately, who gives a rat's fuzzy grey behind that the future co-author of The Final Victim might have 'tidied up' Mike's journalistic efforts--if indeed she did?

All that means is that there were two authors living in the small house on Goldie Street in 1992.

Yet, you'd think from reading your posts that in 1992 Anne was living on the Dark Side of the Moon with Roger, Dave, the long-lamented Syd, and the rest of the band.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drop some acid and meditate while in a yoga position.

That had to be one of the most surreal posts concerning the Barretts I think I have read to date.

What does it all boil down to? A suspicion that the Barretts could have concocted the diary between them [with one of Anne's hands tied behind her back - a bemusing Fido image which never quite made any logical sense to me], based on Mike's published interviews in Celebrity Magazine?

Both Barretts admitted that Mike couldn't have written anything unaided and ever hoped to see it in print, and Martin Fido agreed with this assessment. He believed that Anne could have written the diary, but when he got a personal taste of her researching and writing skills he could hardly believe that she would have let something as badly written as the diary see the light of day. It was close to another 'impossible' moment, like the one relating to the ion migration issue. The diary was too coherent for Mike to have composed it, yet not polished enough to reflect Anne's handiwork. To play devil's advocate, I found this another example of strange logic: the diary is meant to have been the true, private ramblings of a cotton merchant turned murderer; not good literature, nor indeed an Anne Graham essay to be graded up or down for its grammar and spelling. Whoever created it was not consulting a dictionary, nor aiming to reflect their own best use of English. They were aiming to portray one of the most thoroughly flawed human beings in relatively recent history. Using perfect grammar and spelling would have been the last of their concerns, while some effort to copy Maybrick's known handwriting style should have been the first - unless that was never the point of the exercise, because personal fame and fortune never came into it.

In ruling out the Barretts as the diary's creators - as I do - I would expect anyone else, who wasn't worried about the handwriting and had no intention of being identified anyway, to have picked somewhere appropriate for their funny little creation to rest until disturbed by others. This is why I don't understand the visceral pull against this having been Battlecrease House, where the Maybricks were only in residence from February 1888 to May 1889, coinciding exactly with the period covered by the diary. It ought to be called the Battlecrease Diary, for that is what it reflects: supposed events while the house bore that name, courtesy of Florie I believe. It was not called that until the family moved in, and lost the name following Jim's suspicious death. Many believed that Jack the Ripper came and went in that same period.

Imagine if we had circumstantial evidence and witness testimony from several individual sources, indicating that the diary did come out of the house in 1992, and nothing that had yet been found to rule this out?

It might be an idea to put that imagination to better use than squandering it all on Mike Barrett's auction story.

[John Wheat]

Wheato,

Just a polite reminder that not everyone values being called an idiot, especially by someone whose standard opening to every sentence is “Ridiculous”.

Personally, I’m not that fussed but I think it is House Rules to impugn the written (if you really have to), not the writer.

I know. Ridiculous, eh?

I'm not specifically calling the writer an idiot though.

[John Wheat]

That had to be one of the most surreal posts concerning the Barretts I think I have read to date.

What does it all boil down to? A suspicion that the Barretts could have concocted the diary between them [with one of Anne's hands tied behind her back - a bemusing Fido image which never quite made any logical sense to me], based on Mike's published interviews in Celebrity Magazine?

Both Barretts admitted that Mike couldn't have written anything unaided and ever hoped to see it in print, and Martin Fido agreed with this assessment. He believed that Anne could have written the diary, but when he got a personal taste of her researching and writing skills he could hardly believe that she would have let something as badly written as the diary see the light of day. It was close to another 'impossible' moment, like the one relating to the ion migration issue. The diary was too coherent for Mike to have composed it, yet not polished enough to reflect Anne's handiwork. To play devil's advocate, I found this another example of strange logic: the diary is meant to have been the true, private ramblings of a cotton merchant turned murderer; not good literature, nor indeed an Anne Graham essay to be graded up or down for its grammar and spelling. Whoever created it was not consulting a dictionary, nor aiming to reflect their own best use of English. They were aiming to portray one of the most thoroughly flawed human beings in relatively recent history. Using perfect grammar and spelling would have been the last of their concerns, while some effort to copy Maybrick's known handwriting style should have been the first - unless that was never the point of the exercise, because personal fame and fortune never came into it.

In ruling out the Barretts as the diary's creators - as I do - I would expect anyone else, who wasn't worried about the handwriting and had no intention of being identified anyway, to have picked somewhere appropriate for their funny little creation to rest until disturbed by others. This is why I don't understand the visceral pull against this having been Battlecrease House, where the Maybricks were only in residence from February 1888 to May 1889, coinciding exactly with the period covered by the diary. It ought to be called the Battlecrease Diary, for that is what it reflects: supposed events while the house bore that name, courtesy of Florie I believe. It was not called that until the family moved in, and lost the name following Jim's suspicious death. Many believed that Jack the Ripper came and went in that same period.

Imagine if we had circumstantial evidence and witness testimony from several individual sources, indicating that the diary did come out of the house in 1992, and nothing that had yet been found to rule this out?

It might be an idea to put that imagination to better use than squandering it all on Mike Barrett's auction story.

But in all likelihood the diary was written by the Barretts. If your going to argue the Barretts didn't write the diary atleast suggest an alternative writer.