Who were they?

[erobitha]

Loath as I am to wade into the diary argument, it's worth pointing out that at the time Ripperologist we're examining the diary in the early nineties, none of them were aware that Mike Barrett had tried to source a blank Victorian diary. If this had been known at the time, what effect would it have had?

And before we start on the unsuitability of the red diary, it's too small, dates on every page and all that distracting guff, we need to remember:

Mike tried to obtain a blank Victorian diary before showing his diary to a publisher. Why? As a value reference for Jack's confession, or as a body double for it should the police come round are the only arguments for this, and both are equally ridiculous. He sought a blank diary before meeting the buyer.

The blank diary was independently verified. Had it not been, it would have gone down as Mike Barrett fairy tale nonsense. But. It wasn't. Mike 'Bongo Bullshit' Barrett, who was lying when his lips moved, was telling the truth. He absolutely did what he claimed.

If the investigative team knew this at the time, what would they have made if it? I mean, the guy claiming to be in possession of Jack The Rippers diary was trying to buy a blank Victorian diary before he'd shown his to a buyer. It's a bit dodgy, and totally true.

(You can chuck in his finding the Crashaw quote, which conveniently was in a book he'd previously owned too as either proof that he authored the diary, or astoundingly fortuitous).

Well, that concludes my trip to diary land.

Have you read the advert for the diary Al? Why would a potential forger want a diary to create what is in existence as the Maybrick scrapbook? Why the blank pages? Why have a diary with dates in and blank pages? Why the date range?

It smacks of someone who has seen something that has been described as a diary because it reads like a journal. He placed an ad for a body double of something he has seen. He describes what he needs wrongly either way!

Then this magical auction takes place where the auctioneer denies any of their auctions being done in the way Mike describes later on. Mike claims he had the ticket still. No-one has ever seen it. Oh, and the auction had to take place in enough time before his visit to Doreen.

So the actual diary we have today has no verified provenance at all. Hoax or no hoax.

Thanks for the visit Al.

[Iconoclast]

Loath as I am to wade into the diary argument, it's worth pointing out that at the time Ripperologist we're examining the diary in the early nineties, none of them were aware that Mike Barrett had tried to source a blank Victorian diary. If this had been known at the time, what effect would it have had?

Hi Abe, Old Chum!

The answer to your question (above) is that Melvin Harris would have jumped on this news and used it to declare that the scrapbook was clearly a fake created by Mike Barrett so nothing new there (just eventual history brought forward a few years); and those who actually want to sanitise their arguments by considering possible alternatives would have asked the obvious question, 'Why ask for a dairy for a two-year period when your protagonist was six feet under?' so nothing new there (just eventual history brought forward a few years); at which point the Special Pleading Squad would have roared into town and claimed that Victorian diaries didn't necessarily have dates so nothing new there (just eventual history brought forward a few years); at which point some proto-version of me would have said, 'That's what we call a ******* notebook not a diary, you twat' so nothing new there (just eventual history brought forward a few years).

A man who only needs a doppelgänger does not need to worry about the dates in a diary because he just needs to produce something if the rozzers batter down his door at 5am one day. He doesn't need a Jack the Ripper scrapbook or journal or diary or notebook - he just needs a genuine Victorian document which he can pass off as the thing he got from Eddie Lyons down the pub if an incandescent Paul Dodd were screaming 'Nick him, copper - he's a bad 'un!'.

But the man who plans to create a diary of Jack T. Ripper absolutely needs a document which 100% is not dated beyond the point at which his mooted protagonist has left the stage for the final time. This makes his request for an 1880-1890 diary (I think that was the range) somewhat perplexing unless he wasn't planning to create a faked diary of J. T. Ripper at all.

He would obviously check before doing anything at all whether or not his protagonist was still alive during the Ripper killings and from that knowledge, he'd know exactly which diaries would be ever so slightly bonkers to acquire and he'd seek to avoid them unless they were undated (but he didn't ask for a diary that was undated so that rules that possibility out).

Does anyone who thinks that the James Maybrick scrapbook was a hoax think that the hoaxer checked that Maybrick was actually alive in 1888 but did not check if he was dead at any point soon thereafter?

Another of my wonderful thought experiments: Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was playing to packed audiences in London during The Autumn of Terror. It's 1992 and you decide RLS would therefore make a brilliant foil for a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper. What do you do next? I assume you research to ensure that he was actually alive in 1888 (two years after his famous book was first published) - yes? In 2023, that's surely their first thing you do so why would it not be in 1992? Then the second thing you do is you check when he died (to prevent yourself writing entries which must have occurred after he died, obviously). You don't do anything at all until you establish that one fact. Now, I don't know when RLS died so I can say with certainty that I would not have started any such hoax until I knew when he passed on. Would you?

Armed with the knowledge of when he died, if I wanted an actual Victorian diary, I would ask for one which went no further than the year he died. Why would I do anything else? Would you do anything else?

I assume no-one reading this would have started work on a hoaxed Ripper diary supposedly written by Robert Louis Stevenson without first checking when he died? Do we imagine that Michael Barrett in 1992 was any different to us with regard to James Maybrick?

So why did he seek a diary from a two-year period when he must have known that James Maybrick was dead?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Why the blank pages?

I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me this dude wouldn't have made it through the police academy.

[erobitha]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me this dude wouldn't have made it through the police academy.

Good one RJ. He had the dates if he got an 1889 diary. Why did he ask for blank pages within a diary? Who writes a journal in the back of a date book diary?

[caz]

I've said this previously but in all likelihood the Barretts wrote the diary. There is no evidence anyone else wrote the diary.

Really, John? I had no idea you felt that way.

How many times do you think you will have to say it, to make it true?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No Ike, I don't think Barratt had anything to do with writing the Diary. I think Tony Devereux did. It's possible Devereux had an older Diary, or some document written as a spoof and rewrote it sometime after 1988. Then he may have destroyed this old document. Mike just turned over what Tony had given him.

Tony's daughters said - for what it's worth - that their father was not much of a reader or writer. They also said that he kept no secrets from them, but never mentioned the diary, so they couldn't believe he had it or knew anything about it. Tellingly, they thought Mike had got it "from somewhere he shouldn't" and had only used their father's name because he had died in August 1991 and therefore couldn't be questioned in March 1992, when Mike needed an innocent explanation for where it had been.

There is no hard evidence that any diary related to Maybrick was known about, mentioned or discussed by anyone - not Mike, Anne, Tony, Billy or Eddie - before 9th March 1992, when Mike called a London literary agency to say he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

I don't accept that Tony and Mike were keeping this a secret between them until August 1991, and then Mike managed to keep his trap shut for the next seven months before finally deciding to do something with it. What was he waiting for? According to one theory, Mike had a chance encounter in the Saddle, on Monday 9th March 1992, with two electricians who fancied a lunchtime pint after an unscheduled morning's work. Mike is meant to have overheard the startling words, that these two chums had come from James Maybrick's old home of all places, over in Aigburth, where the floorboards were up for a rewiring job. And it was this exciting, but totally unexpected revelation, that supposedly sent the former scrap metal dealer rushing to the nearest phone, to speak to someone who might be interested in seeing Jack the Ripper's diary.

Naturally, nobody would dream of suggesting that such a conversation could have triggered the idea for a diary, in which the Battlecrease One would identify himself as the author of the Whitechapel Murders down in "that London". Not even an incurably impulsive published writer, with the help of his subservient, submissive missus, could have conceived, researched and executed this diary in so short a space of time, delivering the end product to London on Monday 13th April 1992, just five weeks to the day since that chance electrical buzz down the boozer had fired Mike's synapses so effectively.

So assuming Mike already had the diary in some form on 9th March 1992, when he supposedly overheard this thrilling conversation, it wouldn't matter if the plot was only in his head by then, or on his word processor, just waiting for a suitable old book to house it, or in the scrapbook, ready to go to the highest bidder. It would still be one heck of a coincidence for Mike to be hearing at first hand about the Battlecrease floorboards when his Battlecrease diary was waiting in the wings for its cue. Worse still, any imagined conversation providing that 'cue' makes little sense, because Mike would inevitably be asked where the diary had been, and he could hardly say it was under the floorboards of someone's house until that morning, whether it was or not. Hearing any information about the wiring job would have been no use to him at all as a potential provenance for the diary, so I can see no place for it in anyone's theorising. If anything, it should have put Mike off making that call on that day, on learning where a fellow Saddle customer had been working that morning. Considering his angry denials a year later, at the very suggestion of a Battlecrease provenance, why would he have loaded the dice in favour of a disastrous provenance, by knowingly calling Doreen on floorboards day?

Anyway, we know that Mike decided to say that the diary had been with Tony Devereux in 1991, so if he did consider using Battlecrease at any point, he must have worked out why it would be a bad idea. Tony was a pretty bad idea too, but chiefly because it sounded far too convenient, that Mike's friend had died without answering any of his questions. Otherwise, Tony was a safe enough bet if he had no involvement, because nobody could prove he hadn't given Mike the diary. What I find less believable is that Mike would have used for his precious provenance one of the principal movers and shakers behind the diary's creation. Dead men can tell no tales, but it would still have been an avoidable risk if Tony had known anything at all. It is my belief that when he died, neither he nor Mike knew about any diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Really, John? I had no idea you felt that way.

How many times do you think you will have to say it, to make it true?

Love,

Caz
X

It is true. You keep going on about the diary not being written by the Barretts but you never provide any evidence that it was written by someone else. So basically put up or shut up.

[caz]

Nice weasly insult caz. And what have you or anyone learned about Jack the Ripper or contributed to ripperology from the gazillion posts, all the time and research on it and books written ??? Right not a dam thing. Congrats!

Thanks, Abby. I always like to return the favour when I read an insulting post.

The difference in this case is that I don't claim to know what I don't know.

You popped in with a trite and insulting one-liner, claiming that 'everyone' knows who wrote the diary, so I thought my question was a relatively simple one:

Who wrote it, assuming 'everyone' includes you? Who held the pen?

If you don't know, you could have admitted it, instead of responding so defensively without actually saying anything.

I'm none the wiser as a result, so I'm still waiting to learn something new from one of your diary posts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

It is true. You keep going on about the diary not being written by the Barretts but you never provide any evidence that it was written by someone else. So basically put up or shut up.

By implication, if Caz (or anyone else) claims that the Victorian scrapbook was not written by either of the Barretts then you can take it to the bank that what she is stating (not merely implying) is that it was written by someone else. Logic 101.

If - by your 'ridiculous' post - you meant that claiming the Barretts did not contribute to the creation of the text means that she then has an obligation to provide a name (or names) and evidence for who wrote the Victorian scrapbook, then you are deeply mistaken. She has no obligation whatsoever. None of that formed any part of her claim that the Barretts did not contribute to its creation.

[caz]

It is true. You keep going on about the diary not being written by the Barretts but you never provide any evidence that it was written by someone else. So basically put up or shut up.

Oh no John, no John, no John, no!

You are the one claiming that it's true that the Barretts faked this thing, so the onus is totally on you, as their accusers, to put up or shut up.

I don't have to prove they didn't do it, or to provide evidence against anyone else.

The onus of proof is exactly as it is when suspecting someone of the ripper murders, except that one of the Barretts is still with us.

I fully expect RJ to wade in shortly to accuse me of accusing Eddie Lyons of theft, even though I've told him over and over and over again that I don't need to accuse Eddie because there are enough people who have been doing just that since 1992, and providing evidence for it.

RJ doesn't have to prove Eddie didn't do it, but it would help if he could provide any evidence at all for the scrapbook coming from an alternative source - an auction would be good.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Worse still, any imagined conversation providing that 'cue' makes little sense, because Mike would inevitably be asked where the diary had been, and he could hardly say it was under the floorboards of someone's house until that morning, whether it was or not. Hearing any information about the wiring job would have been no use to him at all as a potential provenance for the diary, so I can see no place for it in anyone's theorising. If anything, it should have put Mike off making that call on that day, on learning where a fellow Saddle customer had been working that morning. Considering his angry denials a year later, at the very suggestion of a Battlecrease provenance, why would he have loaded the dice in favour of a disastrous provenance, by knowingly calling Doreen on floorboards day?

Like a knife through butter (see what I did there?), you have cut through the jungle and formed a clearing for the benefit of us all, Caz. Why oh why oh why oh why would Barrett make that 'phonecall if he was unable to make use of the 'coincidence' it would one day unleash upon the world of statistics? As you note, it would actually make March 9, 1992, the most stupid day of all to mention what he apparently still didn't possess. He couldn't claim the link with Battlecrease because it might cost him ownership of his scrapbook - whether he created the darn thing or not!

What I find less believable is that Mike would have used for his precious provenance one of the principal movers and shakers behind the diary's creation.

Yes indeed, not least because - if Tony had had any hand in its creation and Mike knew that - how could Mike possibly know for certain that Tony had not blabbed to someone else about it (a daughter, a son-in-law, some other pal, a neighbour, et cetera)? The fact that Mike did use Tony as his foil suggests very strongly that either Tony genuinely gave Mike the scrapbook or else that Mike knew for a fact that Tony could not have blabbed about anything to anyone (either because Mike created it himself or because he - Mike - got it off the back of Eddie Lyons' lorry).

[John Wheat]

Oh no John, no John, no John, no!

You are the one claiming that it's true that the Barretts faked this thing, so the onus is totally on you, as their accusers, to put up or shut up.

I don't have to prove they didn't do it, or to provide evidence against anyone else.

The onus of proof is exactly as it is when suspecting someone of the ripper murders, except that one of the Barretts is still with us.

I fully expect RJ to wade in shortly to accuse me of accusing Eddie Lyons of theft, even though I've told him over and over and over again that I don't need to accuse Eddie because there are enough people who have been doing just that since 1992, and providing evidence for it.

RJ doesn't have to prove Eddie didn't do it, but it would help if he could provide any evidence at all for the scrapbook coming from an alternative source - an auction would be good.

Love,

Caz
X

Ridiculous post. The Barretts are the obvious writers of the diary. It's for those to prove Maybrick wrote the diary not the other way round. Also I take it you have no evidence whatsoever that someone else wrote the diary. You've wasted years denying the obvious Caz.

[John Wheat]

Thanks, Abby. I always like to return the favour when I read an insulting post.

The difference in this case is that I don't claim to know what I don't know.

You popped in with a trite and insulting one-liner, claiming that 'everyone' knows who wrote the diary, so I thought my question was a relatively simple one:

Who wrote it, assuming 'everyone' includes you? Who held the pen?

If you don't know, you could have admitted it, instead of responding so defensively without actually saying anything.

I'm none the wiser as a result, so I'm still waiting to learn something new from one of your diary posts.

Love,

Caz
X

What an arsey post.

[Iconoclast]

I've been on the Casebook: Jack the Ripper for well over fifteen years (first reading, then posting) and I have never once even been tempted to 'Ignore' a poster but now I finally have.

And what a relief it already is - it's 'ridiculous' how liberating it feels!

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

There is no hard evidence that any diary related to Maybrick was known about, mentioned or discussed by anyone - not Mike, Anne, Tony, Billy or Eddie - before 9th March 1992, when Mike called a London literary agency to say he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

I don't accept that Tony and Mike were keeping this a secret between them until August 1991, and then Mike managed to keep his trap shut for the next seven months before finally deciding to do something with it.

Hi Caroline, what if Mike (who may have already had the Diary in his possession before March 9th) didn't know the Diary was supposed to be written by Maybrick before someone told him, or he figured it out for himself on that March date?