Vote the Diary

[Busy Beaver]

And these are the authors who would certainly not wish for Jack to be named too quickly as they have hundreds of other toilet rolls awaiting to be written on with JTR Tosh.

[John Wheat]

No, he is about the least likely candidate for Jack.

Except for maybe Lechmere.

[Magpie]

Interesting that "old forgery" seems to be making a bit of a comeback in recent years.

[DirectorDave]

So are you an authority on sick notes and the autonomy involved in the movement of lips? No? Well I'll just write it off as unsubstantiated opinion in that case.

Good old Melvin, he gets wheeled out every so often to make a point, by people who never listened to what he was actually saying all those years ago. Hilarious.

So you bring up Melvin Harris, all by yourself then go on to slate people who...wait for it...bring up Melvin Harris?

There is nothing to debate here, the time for that has passed...logic left this discussion a long time ago.

[caz]

Yes Caz. I'm Findey McHoaxface who has just been appointed Professor of hoax-finding at Oxford University...jeez "An authority on how hoaxes become more valuable the longer they are tucked away"...we are through the looking glass now people!

Well you started the nonsense, DD, with this:

'...this item is accumulating value just through keeping it tucked away'.

I merely wondered how you thought you could state that as a fact and not raise a titter.

What is also chuckle-worthy is that the people who usually accuse Mike Barrett of having been a smart enough con artist to write the diary, despite ample evidence that he couldn't have forged a sick note, have allowed themselves to be conned by the same chap whenever his lips moved concerning the subject.

In a fine ironic twist, they also like to hold up Melvin Harris as an expert in exposing such con artists, who worked tirelessly to demonstrate the diary was a fake, when the writing didn't even pretend to resemble Maybrick's. Yet Melvin had to concede defeat concerning Mike as its author, declaring that he did not have the 'capacity' to write it. If anyone thinks Mighty Mel knew a con artist when he saw one, how do they suppose Mike Barrett of all people was able to con him rotten with such ease?

Good old Melvin, he gets wheeled out every so often to make a point, by people who never listened to what he was actually saying all those years ago. Hilarious.

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

Yes Caz. I'm Findey McHoaxface who has just been appointed Professor of hoax-finding at Oxford University...jeez "An authority on how hoaxes become more valuable the longer they are tucked away"...we are through the looking glass now people!

[caz]

If the owner(s) of the diary were interested in putting a case to "the Jury" the diary could be independently examined, without book deals or affidavits or dodgy providence on dodgy providence. This will not happen as this item is accumulating value just through keeping it tucked away.

Hi DD,

Is this your opinion, or are you an authority on how hoaxes become more valuable the longer they are 'tucked away' unexamined?

And is it also your opinion that Mike Barrett owned a word processor in 1985? Or do have evidence for this - beyond of course Mike's word for it? You do know what other claims Mike made over the years, which were often enough to make one's eyes water?

You really don't have to hang on to a single word Mike ever said, in order to believe the diary was not written by a Maybrick.

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

Hi Ike,

I'm fine with you finding nothing to respond to, I am not a proponent of "The last word wins" rule.

On the WP my point was simply that Word Processors in a domestic setting were uncommon, they were expensive things in 1985 and I really don't think they were "more common" in that setting even in 1992, by then they were being replaced by software on computers.

Calling him out on having a WP is just highlighting that possessing one in those years adds to the "Mike Barrett has an interest in writing" column...nothing more cloaked or sinister than that.

3 posts in 7 years on this subject I think is enough for me, and thus I give you the honour, should you wish to take it, of the last word in this particular discussion.

I wish you well with your contemplations.

[Iconoclast]

Often, when you don't respond to a post, it is misunderstood for "Haven't got an answer to that and don't want to admit to it". In this case, I want to be clear that that I find nothing new in your second post for me to respond to.

I understand that you think the journal is a forgery and therefore - as you say - your opinion is your driving force. That leaps out in every word you write, and yet despite the volume of your reply I find little or nothing to respond to.

Just for clarity, which children's stories did Mike Barrett author? If you are referring to a few articles in Look-In magazine, I don't honestly think that qualifies him as a man of letters, whether that be Liverpool or London. And if he had a WP (in 1985 when they were less common or indeed 1992 when they were more common) what bearing does that have in terms of anything? He confessed to typing it up on a WP and lo and behold he had a WP. I think you must surely have menat something entirely different to this but I can't fathom what it could be.

[DirectorDave]

Hi Ike.

Goodness me, it is deep convictions such as these - based on opinion and generalised disbelief - which ensure that the journal remains easily disbelieved, not because the journal in itself has been disproven.

I'm more than wiling to accept that opinion, my opinion is the driving force behind my conclusion that this is a modern fake, but what are we left with? Lies, obfuscation and common sense seem to have to be set aside before proceeding, ultimately (almost) everyone is left to judge the story on it's merits, fewer people can judge the people involved and fewer still have access to the document itself. As for deep convictions, I'm pretty sure in my 7 years on casebook this is my first ever comment on the diary.

You don't make reference to the expanded provenance (of Anne Barrett) which takes the journal right back to Edith Formby and 1888/89 (whether you believe that provenance or not, that is what it now is). Nor do you add the astonishing aside that Florence Maybrick - on leaving gaol in 1904 - adopted the surname Graham.

Correct, I didn't. If it can be proved that Anne is in fact related to the Maybrick family there would be something worth talking about. A few photographs that apparently "have similarities" and turning up at a Maybrick family reunion is not enough to make that particular rabbit hole appealing for me to enter.

The author of the journal chose to use a photograph album. Strange choice, it is true, but hardly proof of a forgery. If the photgraph album were so compelling of a forgery, how are we still having the debate 24 years later? And counting!

I think a photograph album is not a strange choice, Victorian books are hard to come by, the Author came by the Album, removed the first few pages...makes perfect sense to me. The fact it is a photo album proof in itself of forgery? No...just another mark (a big mark imo) in the "fake" column. A quarter of a century later we are still discussing it does not mean anything, we are still discussing the original "Ripper" correspondence 5 quarters of a century since they were received. Just because we cannot unquestionably rule out any Ripper letter in no way means any or all are genuine.

"The ink has not passed scrutiny, indeed has from what I've read failed scrutiny." Anyone who has read the various books on the journal will agree that the ink has both its authenticators and its distractors. The jury is out.

No...the jury has been sent home. The diary is not on trial, it's not "innocent until proven otherwise", we don't need "reasonable doubt" to prove it's authenticity we need verifiable proof of it's authenticity to take it seriously, if we had that, which we don't, there would be no debate.

The journal claims first a verse, then reference to having given the world the infamous name, then claims a second version of the verse. Each of these is corroberated by the evidence (see my History vs Maybrick thread if you're unsure to what I refer). The name was given in a letter dated September 17, 1888 written in a hand with clear echoes of that which wrote the journal. The fact that "Dear Boss" came eight days later means that the authenticity of "Dear Boss" is irrelevant. Whether it was written by a journalist or by the journalist (see what I did there?) is irrelevant because the journal can be seen to be referring to the unpublished, long-forgotten September 17 letter not the famous September 25 one. And even if we did not have the September 17 letter (but thank goodness that we do), it is merely the current fashion to believe that "Dear Boss" was written by a journalist. Current fashion does not a fact make. In much the same way as it used to be a fact that there were seven canonical victiims, time has shifted that to five. In time, it may eventually become more or less than five, but we should not confuse current musing with known fact.

Another rabbit hole, if we are to use the Sept 17th letter as any type of evidence to support anything Ripper related then we really are in the land of rainbows and unicorns...you want to chase your tail round the maypole with that one, carry on but I wont dance, leaving you to point and say "look he won't even discuss it"...I'm fine with that.

"The fact the document seems to be "in hiding".". I don't understand this comment - could you clarify, please?

Yes I can clarify. If the owner(s) of the diary were interested in putting a case to "the Jury" the diary could be independently examined, without book deals or affidavits or dodgy providence on dodgy providence. This will not happen as this item is accumulating value just through keeping it tucked away.

Seriously, everything in life is relative. Good luck with your MIke Barrett as local writer theory.

He wrote children's stories? had a word processor in his home, long before that was common? I'm not sure what the theory of relativity has to do with it, but many proponents of the diary seem to dismiss Mike Barrett as easily as the people they criticise for dismissing the diary in the exact same way.

The journal has shown over 24 years that it cannot be as easily dismissed as you attempt to do. If it were that easy, it would have been conclusively done. The fact that in 2016 we are still able to have the debate tells you that this thing cannot be so easily shaken.

This is why we are still taking about it 25 years on...because the burden of proof seems to lie with the detractors and unbelievers, it doesn't in my opinion...the onus of proof is on the proponents of this photograph album to prove it's authenticity and in 25 years they have failed to do so.

[Iconoclast]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

No, he is about the least likely candidate for Jack.

[StevenOwl]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

Without the diary I believe Maybrick would never have come to light as a possible suspect. For argument's sake, let's say that the diary never surfaced but in the last 20 years someone saw a photo of JM and thought he looked like the common public perception of JTR and decided to look into him, just as a 'what if...'. I still don't think there's anything there for him to be named as a credible suspect, but as we know there isn't anything in the public domain that makes it impossible for him to have been the Ripper either.

[Geddy2112]

Just to settle in the demons in my head...

Is Maybrick still a good suspect without the watch and diary?

[Iconoclast]

I thought that you had to prove that someone was guilty rather than not guilty. Nowhere in the diary does it prove , or even come close to proving James Maybrick was guilty.

It rather obviously cuts both ways, Darryl. If you or anyone else states that the journal is a forgery you either just state it and leave it at that or you make your case for why you believe that to be so. If you just state it, people will wonder upon what criteria you have ddismissed the journal and if you then provide it, you will have it challenged if it is not criteria which actually prove your claims (i.e., if it's fundamentally just your opinion).

Similarly, if I or anyone else state that the journal is authentic, we either state it and leave it at that or else we make our case for why we believe that to be so.

The argument that the onus sits with the pro-journal camp to prove the journal is true is relevant only for a court of law. This Casebook is not a court of law, therefore we can quite appropriately ask you to back up your assertions with some sort of case.

Ike

[Darryl Kenyon]

If only you (or anyone else) were able to show conclusively that the journal is a forgery, we would all happily concur.

Until that moment comes, we (probably just I) keep our vigil and keep believing that it could well be the real deal.

Ike

I thought that you had to prove that someone was guilty rather than not guilty. Nowhere in the diary does it prove , or even come close to proving James Maybrick was guilty.