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

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as I know, science is supposed to be done blind. You’re not supposed to know who supposedly wrote the document before you assess it. And no one should totally accept the verdict when it’s given by someone who didn’t follow that rule. They knew it was a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper. Why would I name-drop the names of these experts even if they were right.

One didn’t know about Nigrosine and both didn’t know or consider what effect being sealed in an air-tight container might have a century old document.

If you’re not going into the study blind, you better go into it with your glasses on and make sure you see everything. And of course, still be objective. At least, try!

In your mind, Lombro, how do you think it would be physically possible for an expert document examiner to examine the original diary, as Dr Baxendale was asked to do, without them knowing it was supposed to have been written a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper?

[Lombro2]

As far as I know, science is supposed to be done blind. You’re not supposed to know who supposedly wrote the document before you assess it. And no one should totally accept the verdict when it’s given by someone who didn’t follow that rule. They knew it was a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper. Why would I name-drop the names of these experts even if they were right.

One didn’t know about Nigrosine and both didn’t know or consider what effect being sealed in an air-tight container might have a century old document.

If you’re not going into the study blind, you better go into it with your glasses on and make sure you see everything. And of course, still be objective. At least, try!

[Herlock Sholmes]

And those 'experts' are never wrong! [Thank you, Lord Roper.]

I'm pretty sure flat earthers say exactly the same thing about experts on a regular basis, Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

It goes to his general character and to the fact he was clearly pissed. It therefore adds a great deal to our assessment of the value we place on his words at the event.

You know this, though. You must know this.

But I'm not disputing he was drunk. What does that have to do with it? You keep wanting to talk about his affidavit even though he was almost certainly drunk when he signed it.

Being drunk in 1999, it makes it all the more remarkable that he seems to have been telling a consistent and coherent story about how the diary was created. As you know, that's Orsam's main observation in the article of his you directed me to. It strikes me as a good one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened. Lots of things could happen but generally speaking they are evidenced somewhere in the record (and not simply claimed over and over again by drunk men). It's just a terrible shame that Mike Barrett's claims were so frequently contradicted by himself that it is literally impossible to trust an unproven word he ever said.

Remember, this is the guy who said he got rid of all the evidence but oft-times claimed he still had it. He gave it to his sister and she disposed of it, apparently. Except she says she didn't.

In amongst all of the lies and the drinking, you feel that there must be a kernel of truth going on and the truth you are clinging to is simply so extraordinary that it requires actual evidence which Mike Barrett singularly failed to ever produce.

Not once.

When you say "I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened" I think you've been reading different posts to the ones I've been reading in this thread, Ike. But, well, I now look forward to Caz telling me that the Barretts could, indeed, have forged the diary. Because I thought that was the very thing she's been telling me could not have happened. Perhaps I've misunderstood her.

And let me be very clear. All I'm saying is that I can't see why the Barretts couldn't be the forgers. I don't rely on anything that Barrett said "amongst all the likes and the drinking". I know that the diary is a modern forgery. I wonder how it got into the hands of the Barretts. I note that Barrett sought a genuine Victorian diary from the decade of the Ripper murders with blank pages. I note that his wife lied about why he did so. Getting hold of such a diary is something I would only expect a prospective forger to have done. So I can't see why the Barretts aren't obvious candidates for forging the diary. Despite this very straightforward and logical approach to the subject, it seems to be controversial for some reason.

But if you are accepting that it's possible that the Barretts forged the diary then I'm not sure there's really any need to continue this discussion, as we both agree. If so, I'm very glad to hear

[Herlock Sholmes]

Goodness me, a drunken man signs an affidavit and a drunken man gives a first hand account of his forgery at a meeting, and that's good enough for you.

Some people might set a slightly higher standard of evidence.

Just saying.

You've said it yourself, Ike. All we know he did in 1995 is sign his name to a document prepared by someone else. Whereas in 1999 he actually spoke the words, So shouldn't we focus on his words?

You seem to be terribly keen not to consider what he said in 1999.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks Roger. On checking what Dr. Nickell had to say, I see he wrote in his book:
"Actually, the paper is from the right period, but the ink was clearly applied this century - probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests".
And he was an expert on forgeries.

And those 'experts' are never wrong! [Thank you, Lord Roper.]

[Iconoclast]

Let me ask this. How is Barrett threatening an audience member in any way relevant to the story of how he created the diary? Why not focus on what is important, Ike, rather than going down all these silly side roads?

It goes to his general character and to the fact he was clearly pissed. It therefore adds a great deal to our assessment of the value we place on his words at the event.

You know this, though. You must know this.

[Iconoclast]

I'm waiting patiently for someone to tell me. But no-one ever does.

I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened. Lots of things could happen but generally speaking they are evidenced somewhere in the record (and not simply claimed over and over again by drunk men). It's just a terrible shame that Mike Barrett's claims were so frequently contradicted by himself that it is literally impossible to trust an unproven word he ever said.

Remember, this is the guy who said he got rid of all the evidence but oft-times claimed he still had it. He gave it to his sister and she disposed of it, apparently. Except she says she didn't.

In amongst all of the lies and the drinking, you feel that there must be a kernel of truth going on and the truth you are clinging to is simply so extraordinary that it requires actual evidence which Mike Barrett singularly failed to ever produce.

Not once.

[Iconoclast]

As I keep saying, Ike, but you never once acknowledge, a story told by someone who had no first hand knowledge of events but who was trying to decipher the words of a drunken man is quite likely to be garbled, at best.
You can keep going on about chronological errors in the affidavit or you can do something more productive.
I've given you the story as told by Michael Barrett himself, albeit while inebriated, so there can be no doubt that it was him speaking. Why don't you focus on that story instead?
And what's the issue with the eleven days? Are you saying it's too long or too short a period?

Goodness me, a drunken man signs an affidavit and a drunken man gives a first hand account of his forgery at a meeting, and that's good enough for you.

Some people might set a slightly higher standard of evidence.

Just saying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

In case you've missed it, or have been confused by lengthy word salads, the argument that the Diary supporters have presented over the past 30 years is that because Dr. Baxendale admitted that he didn't have much information about when nigrosine was introduced into writing inks, he was legally blind.

That's it in a nutshell. His lack of precise knowledge about the history of an additive means he couldn't see how the ink & paper samples behaved in solvent.

That's what they want you to believe.

Personally, I couldn't give a fig about Dr. B's knowledge of ink manufacturing, I only care that he had eyes in his head and described what he was seeing.

There is a highly ironic moment in Shirley Harrison's 'American Connection' where she demonstrates Dr. Baxendale's ignorance of when nigrosine was introduced by citing Pen, Ink, and Evidence by Joe Nickell, who traced its introduction to the 1860s.

Notice anything strange?

Shirley cites Nickell's expertise to discredit Baxendale, yet clearly it was Nickell himself, fully aware of Baxendale's full report, who endorsed Baxendale's ink solubility test and found it so significantly damning to all claims of the diary's alleged antiquity.

But then, perhaps Dr. Nickell was more judicious and fair-minded than those who now wish to push the date of the diary's creation backward, even though they profess not to care when it was written, provided it was finished before 9 March 1992 at 8 a.m.

Warmest regards, etc.

Thanks Roger. On checking what Dr. Nickell had to say, I see he wrote in his book:

"Actually, the paper is from the right period, but the ink was clearly applied this century - probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests".

And he was an expert on forgeries.

[Iconoclast]

... comparing it to what Barrett actually said at Cloak & Dagger. I've done my best to paste it all in for you. Perhaps that's where your investigation should go no?

I think it's reasonable to say that I have done my fair share of investigating of all things Mike Barrett, including actually witnessing the watch rather than simply talking about it - oh, and transcribing the Cloak & Dagger Club meeting in its entirety.

But thanks for the suggestion, nevertheless ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a long meeting and this is just a fraction of what he said and does not appear to include Keith Skinner's questions nor the audience's questions nor the truly horrendous bit at the end when Barrett picks a fight with someone who has committed the crime of mentioning his daughter's name.

But, then again, he was well in his cups at the time - disproving the old adage regarding 'In vitro veritas', I suggest.

Ike, I did say when introducing the material that it was what Barrett said when being interviewed by Keith Skinner so that obviously doesn't include the answers to questions he was asked by audience members afterwards. I only wanted to include Barrett's own words, not Keith Skinner's questions. As I said, I don't think I've left out anything that's relevant or material. I don't think the Q&A session after the interview added very much. I'd love to copy and paste the entire article but I can't do that. You've obviously read it. Anyone else can read it. If there's anything additional you want to include please do so.

Let me ask this. How is Barrett threatening an audience member in any way relevant to the story of how he created the diary? Why not focus on what is important, Ike, rather than going down all these silly side roads?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In all my years examining this case, this is - to me - the funniest moment of all. You'll like it because Alan Gray, Ace Detective, confirms your assumption that Anne Graham wrote the text into the Maybrick scrapbook and even introduces an affair between Tony Devereux and Anne (which - I should add - there is zero evidence for). It's a brilliant idea - Tony and Anne write the scrapbook then Tony gives it to Mike! It's the very last, parting comment from Gray that just cracks me up every time - it perfectly sums up his frustration at realising how Barrett had lied to him and used him for so long:

I ALAN RICHARD GRAY, make oath and state as follows:-

That I am a detective with Proctor & Collins Investigations of 91 Thornton Road, Liverpool, L16 2LP, in the County of Merseyside..

On Sunday the 18^th January 1998 I was waiting in Brook Road West, Waterloo, Liverpool, 23, when at 11.5pm [sic] I saw MICHAEL JOHN BARRETT. We then entered into a conversation, which I outline as follows:-

The initials AG represent myself and the initials MJB represent Mr Michael Barrett:-

AG: I said, “Thanks for the wildgoose chase over the blotting paper, Why do you tell so many lies”.
MJB: Laughing loudly, clearly under the influence of drink, Mr Barrett said, “That’s for you to find out”.
AG: “For many years, I have tried everything to get to the truth of this matter. I have protected you and looked out for you, been bodyguard and friend over a long period of time in which you run up a bill with me of over £3,000-00p. I have watched you con-some nice ladies take their money form them. I warned them and that’s why I can live with that. The nursing sister ‘clare’ from Southport. I think its an alias, you should leave her alone. You are a Rat, Scum and the biggest liar I have ever met”
MJB: Well Alan, you have to tell the tale right, its just like fishing, you play the line then just pull them in. I told you just what you wanted to know. I knew what you wanted to hear and then I had you believing.
AG: I realise now that you could’nt possibley have had anything to do with the ‘Jack the Ripper’ diary fraud, your to thick, to drunk and really quite unable to come up with such a creation, Now Devereux, that’s another kettle of fish, he wrote the diary or should I say he wrote the story lines and Anne Barrett wrote the diary, your Anne or should I say Devereux’s Anne, when you realised Anne and Devereux had something on the go, it turned you around, you were stupid, Anne made some very clever moves and you thought you had control, Anne sold you out all the way down the line, before you had finished your early morning drink.
MJB: **** you, my daughter saw all that happened, Annes a ****in bitch. I could really kill that cow.
AG: Rubbish, you haven’t got the guts to do anything, scum like you. You abused the resting place of Maybrick, broke the cross on his grave, and told me you did it with Devereux, God forgive you, that lie was very important lie to me, you set Devereux up for this matter and he could’nt defend himself. Your mate you said, “Rubbish” you knew he and Anne were at it, and you got the shock of your life when Devereux gave you the Diary, he and Anne had concocted.
MJB: I wrote the Diary with a little bit of help from Devereux he was a knowledgeable man, very intelligent and Anne Barrett wrote it down.
AG: Michael you can’t write, you can’t even lie properly these days, your pathetic. You made an attempt with a story ‘Daniel the Dolphin Boy’ what a load of rubbish, and Mrs Montgomery told me you stole the illustrations from another book. That’s what Mrs Montgomery meant when she said you would be charged for fraud, and here we go again, but Devereux’ talent was sadly missing on this occasion.
MJB: I wrote the Diary, did all the research which I gave to Shirley Harrison, and they all sold me out.
AG: Michael, can you not get it into your head that the Diary is a fraud, and you sold the Diary for £1. I suppose that’s all its worth, but you were with the right crowd all right, Feldman, The Publishers and Anne Barrett and the list goes on and on, Never-the-less you had the Diary alleged in your hand, put there by Feldman, Anne Barrett and Devereux, makes you think. This was one big set up and you Liverpools best con-man was conned, that’s the funny bit. They had the money, you had the promises.
MJB: I’ll have the last laugh, I’ll tell them all about it in court.
AG: Michael the Court will hear evidence not hearsay, can you comprehend this, Evidence, but not the evidence you had. Clare Ashton phone me about the other day mentioning the blotting papers that your Solicitor has. Another lie to a nice lady. I have confirmed with your Solicitor that there is no blotting paper.
MJB: I have told you everything, I destroyed all evidence when the Police came up from London. I have nothing left. I wrote the Diary, Anne wrote it down. I can’t say anymore, my daughter did witness a lot of what was going on. I know I owe you a lot of money, it was promised to me and I never got it. I’ll pay you back when I can.
AG: Michael, another lie, you received over £11,000 on one occasion and your Solicitor kept the lot you said, but again you had your share and you paid nothing off your debts. I have to tell you don’t call me as a witness, I’ll help you down. You are a liar and a cheat and if I had my way, you would be charged with Conspiracy. I have no intention of doing anything for you, giving evidence or being of any assistance.
MJB: Ha ha ha, I give my name to History, what love can do to a gentleman born.
AG: Don’t ring me anymore or contact me. I am going now before I kick the **** out of you.

I then left the area.

SWORN at Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, this 22^nd day of January 1998.

Seriously, what a sorry tale of complete losers ...

Thanks for posting Alan Gray's affidavit, Ike.

So, in a private conversation, Barrett says:

"I wrote the Diary with a little bit of help from Devereux he was a knowledgeable man, very intelligent and Anne Barrett wrote it down.... I wrote the Diary, did all the research which I gave to Shirley Harrison, and they all sold me out....I have told you everything, I destroyed all evidence when the Police came up from London. I have nothing left. I wrote the Diary, Anne wrote it down. I can’t say anymore, my daughter did witness a lot of what was going on."

I find it interesting that Barrett says he destroyed all the evidence when the police were involved. That does make sense. He seems to be very consistent in saying that that he wrote the diary and Anne wrote it down. He also seems to be consistent in saying his daughter witnessed it.

Although Gray obviously didn't believe him, I still can't see why this couldn't have happened. I'm waiting patiently for someone to tell me. But no-one ever does.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's just a perfectly acceptable alternative for 'issue'.

Nothing to see here, dear readers, bar the green shoots of utter desperation of course.

Well, Ike, if you were trying to say, "The original issue was around how much of Barrett's affidavit had been confirmed (or accepted as true)", that wasn't the original issue. The original issue, as raised by Roger, was that the affidavit contains some elements which have been confirmed, so is worth intelligently investigating on that basis. It was only you and Erobitha who raised a totally different issue about which elements had been confirmed. But now that you've finally worked it all out, and discovered that what Roger said was true, it would be nice if you could finally "intelligently investigate" Michael Barrett's affidavit which I would say, rather than trying to find typos and minor dating errors, first of all involves comparing it to what Barrett actually said at Cloak & Dagger. I've done my best to paste it all in for you. Perhaps that's where your investigation should go no?