The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

yes-- there is no reason to think that Barrett (who was apparently considered a 'mental vegetable' by the early diary researchers) would know that examples of Maybrick's handwriting still existed, so it's a non-argument.

Maybrick had been dead for over 100 years by 1992 when pen went to paper, but once an exemplar was discovered, Barrett put into play the 'drug addict' explanation---not that arsenic is an actual psychotropic; it's just a stimulant, but it was apparently good enough for Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison, Colin Wilson, and others. If they couldn't quite stomach that maybricksplanation, they could always fall back on the will being a forgery instead of the diary!! As Donald Rumbelow once pointed out, the researchers were quite willing to do the hoaxer's work for him...

Further, unless the diary's supporters were camped out in Goldie Street in 1991/2 (which, despite what they like to insinuate is unlikely) they have no idea what inquiries Anne or Mike might have made. It's the usual non-argument smokescreen based on no information, and it smells of desperation.

For about the tenth time, let me quote something that Melvin Harris revealed about Paul Feldman's investigation into the handwriting.

The Maybrick Will -- The Crucial Key to a Shabby Hoax
Melvin Harris

I first saw the 'Maybrick Diary' long after 'the experts and advisors' had had their say. But before seeing it I made three predictions; it would be written in a simple iron-gall ink, which could not be dated; it would be written in an old journal with its front pages torn out; the handwriting would not match the known handwriting of James Maybrick. With time all three forecasts proved correct, but when first shown this document I was assured by Paul Feldman that no significant examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed. There was just one signature on his marriage lines, but nothing else:--"We have checked."

"We have checked." That needs repeating.


Question: If Paul Feldman's team--which included professional researchers such has Keith Skinner and Paul Begg, etc.--couldn't find any 'significant' example of Maybrick's handwriting to compare to the hoax, why couldn't a far less sophisticated man like Mike Barrett have made his own simple inquiries and drawn the same conclusion?

Obviously, despite all the bluff and bluster, he could have.

I've always seen it as a bizarre and desperate argument. Pointing out the handwriting doesn't even match is like saying, "the forgery is so bad it must not be a forgery! No one would risk it."

If criminals and hoaxers weren't willing to take risks, there would be no crime and no hoaxes.

One could point out the nylon threads in the Hitler Diaries and say, "well it must have been a spoof. Any forger worth his salt would have gotten paper from the 1940s."

Such a bizarre argument would hardly have stopped Konrad Kajau from going to prison.

The argument is bonkers. I put utterly no stock in it.

Cheers.

P.S. Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear about Mike "immediately" submitting the diary to forensic tests. I've been following the diary debacle for 20 years and this is the first I've heard of such tests. It will be fascinating to learn about them.

I tend to agree with you Roger. For all we know, the forger was entirely satisfied that no examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed and was surprised to discover later that this wasn't the case. I just can't see how the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's can possibly be used to support an argument that the diary isn't a forgery. It's an bit Alice in Wonderland, I feel.