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

[rjpalmer]

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

Martin Fido addressed this in a companion piece to his above "scenario"; it's in the second and third paragraphs below, while his first paragraph was addressed to Caroline's single question about Mike's handwriting.

It seems strange that you would question the validity of forming a hypothesis but, then again, considering that Diary Belief a Faith-Based Religion, that demands that it be DISPROVED, by one, single solitary fact, perhaps I do understand it.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock.
I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??
It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

Just for completeness, RJ, which facts does your theory fit which are not otherwise accommodated easily by other theories? You write as though we are all sitting on the edge of our seats awaiting the moment when a theory comes along which is able to account for the very small amount of what we know went on in 12 Goldie Street between March 9, 1992 and April 13, 1992 (and before then and after then), but the reality is that no-one is sitting on the edge of any seat awaiting the solution to some conundrum which your theory magically resolves. We all just resolve any quandaries we may have by fitting them into our own theories which only get holes punched in them when commentators desire to operate to different values for themselves than they apply to others.

"I like that theory because it fits how I want the truth to be. I don't like that theory because it does not fit how I want the truth to be."

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock.

If you don't mind, let me turn your attention for a brief second to Martin Fido: Oxford graduate, Oxford don, successful broadcaster, prolific author of books on subjects ranging from Chaucer to the Kray Twins, lecturer at Michigan State University and Boston College, writing teacher, one of the earliest researchers of the Maybrick Hoax and a man who had full access to Feldman's research and communications, as well as a man who had the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

He sounds like someone we might want to listen to...

What was Fido's theory of the Maybrick Hoax?

Martin's theory was the diary was a modern fake, written primarily or entirely by Anne Graham, possibly as piece of fiction, and it was afterwards turned into a hoax by Mike Barrett.

In short, he had the same general theory as I do, independently conceived, with a few minor variations. If my ideas are incoherent and insane, as has been suggested, I'm happy that I am in same padded cell as someone as accomplished as Martin.






I can't agree with Martin's last idea that Barrett was the penman (although in theory Mike could have sought out a helper), but I know why Martin suggested this

Based on remarks made elsewhere, Martin believed Anne was too literate to have been the pen person--that she wouldn't have made the spelling and grammatical errors we see in the diary. But Martin based this assumption on one single, solitary document: the "professional" research paper on Liverpool laundries that Anne had written for Feldman.

If Martin had had access to the same personal writings of Anne's obtained by David Barrat, would he have made the same assumption? I doubt it. They show the identical careless errors and mistaken homophones as we can see in the diary. Thus, there was no need for Martin to substitute Mike as the penman.

Other diary theorist weave speculations about Mike and Anne out of thin air and also operate from the mistaken principle that Anne, if involved, wanted the diary to succeed.

This is one of their primary errors and they repeat it again & again in their objections.

I don't see it that way. Anne constantly said she didn't want the diary published, and in this instance, I believe her. Anne also believed--based on her own testimony-- that once Mike brought the diary to London, the literary agent would 'just send Mike packing.'

I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??

It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

And if I'm wrong, and I doubt that I am, it only means Anne was a willing accomplice rather than the unwilling one theorized by Martin.

Martin also understood that because Anne was a sympathetic person, a single mother, she avoided the skepticism and scrutiny that was aimed at Barrett. That's still the case. Even now, all the diary debaters can talk about is Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett. The low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

So no, there is no contradiction in the idea that Anne was both a collaborator and a woman who was terrified when she realized the diary was going to be published.

Did she try to burn it? I have no idea. It could be a pork pie, certainly. But Caroline Barrett remembers her parents fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, and that's an odd thing to 'coach' a child. Why would they have coached her about a fight behind the scenes? It would have only raised red flags.

Here's to the memory of Martin Fido. I don't think he was entirely correct--but he was very close.

Cheers.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

We appear to be at cross purposes I wrote: "The diary is presented as a text written by James Maybrick". You seem to agree with me. So it's a forgery. I thought you were disputing that in an earlier post but it's good that we both now agree it's a forgery. Obviously, the diary is not an art forgery, so different principles apply in terms of style.

As for Baxendale's opinion, you've repeated the very thing I was attempting to correct! He didn't say that the earliest date of origin was 1945. He said that the diary ink had originated "since 1945" which, to my understanding, rules out a 1945 creation

It was presented by Mike Barrett, as a text purportedly written by James Maybrick. I don't believe the handwriting is Maybrick's, but I don't believe it's Anne's either, in which case Mike would not have known if it was or wasn't written by James Maybrick when he presented it. That is what he would have been expecting to learn, but he had no money for any tests, so he had to leave that side of things to others, if they were prepared to invest theirs.

Oh my goodness, how hard can this be? I quoted Baxendale's actual words! In his 'opinion', he only considered it 'likely' that it originated since 1945. If you are picking me up because I should have given his earliest date of origin as 1946, and not 1945, then I stand corrected. Put me on the naughty step and dock my pocket money.

Apparently, in Mike Barrett's affidavit, a year or three either way for the creation of his diary is absolutely fine and only to be expected. Give that man a bonus for trying to get it right through Scotch mist.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Apologies for the slow reply I’ve been having fun in Tesco.

Apologies for all my slow replies, if and when one is warranted. I shall be having my fun in Tesco tomorrow - more fun now we are in February, and 'dry' January is but a bitter memory.

The inability of an expert to identify a forgery created yesterday, or a few days earlier, meant that it was obviously beneficial for Mike, as the forger, for the diary to see the light immediately rather than being hidden pointlessly for a year. I therefore have to disagree with you when you say "there'd have been no benefit to him whatsoever". There was surely a clear benefit, enabling him to make money faster.

In that case, why do you suppose Mike stated in his confessional affidavit that the red diary was purchased and rejected in January 1990, quickly followed by the purchase of the photo album and the eleven-day diary creation, but the finished forgery was effectively 'hidden pointlessly' for over two years, because Tony Devereux, who was a party to the whole project, became severely ill. Mike doesn't explain why this was a reason to put it on hold for so long, if his motive was to make money fast and use it to pay the mortgage - unless they had to wait for their partner in crime to snuff it so they could use him for the provenance. But it was rubbish in any case because Tony died unexpectedly in August 1991 - over a year after Mike claimed the diary was done and dusted, but many months before he did anything with it. Tony was dead long before the stupid red diary affair and Mike knew it. He was using his dead friend as the provenance when he put in the request, for God's sake.

You now raise a completely different argument, unrelated to what I wrote, which is that Barrett couldn't have known whether or not an expert would be able to detect that the diary wasn't written in 1888. The problem is that you could apply this logic to every single forger of historical artefacts in the entire world. In which case, no forger would ever attempt a forgery, on the basis that an expert might be able to detect the forgery. To me, that doesn't make sense because experience shows that forgers tend to produce forgeries regardless.

I hear you, but that still means Mike Barrett would have been taking one hell of a risk to present his wife's handiwork to anyone as Jack the Ripper's diary. If he had forged it himself, he would presumably have made some attempt to make it look like it could be genuine and be satisfied with the result. The risk would have been a calculated one. But it's Anne who stands accused here, so how was Mike meant to judge whether the result would look clean as a whistle to anyone else, or reveal itself sooner or later for what it was - creative fiction, which is what she supposedly set out to write, and which Mike supposedly encouraged her to believe? The risk, from Anne's point of view, would have been massive in those circumstances, and yet after failing to destroy her own work when she finally twigged Mike's true intentions for it, she didn't have the three brain cells required to come up with a Plan B that would stop it getting into expert hands? Really? Is this what you believe, Herlock? Or do you have doubts about the only Barrett theory currently under discussion?

For me, you are looking at this the wrong way round. You seem to consider only the risk, even though the risk to the Barretts was minimal on the basis that Mike's story was that he'd been given the diary by his dead friend, so there was no peril to him or his wife if an expert declared it to be a forgery. He could have said “well how was I to know it was a forgery? I’m not an expert.” I think you need to look more at the possible reward. Surely that's what all criminals think of when they plan a crime. The risks are ignored. I can't see any problem in Mike, as the forger, confidently thinking in his own mind that he could make a lot of money from a diary of Jack the Ripper written in a Victorian looking old book in Victorian style ink with (attempted) Victorian style handwriting. Perhaps his confidence was misplaced - I don't know - but he did, in fact, make money from it, didn't he? People committing crimes often think that they are cleverer than they actually are…I’d apply this to a certain Mr. Wallace.

Try looking at it from the point of view of a man who doesn't know if it's a forgery when he takes it to London, but hopes it isn't. No harm, no foul, if the worst happens, because he didn't forge it and nor did his wife, his dead friend or the cat. If he makes money out of the story when it becomes a bestseller, it's not his fault if the diary itself is proven to be by someone other than James Maybrick. He has committed no crime - unless of course he makes money by knowingly selling something that belongs to someone else, forgery or not.

There is a whole world of difference between this and knowing his wife wrote the diary - in which case he didn't think he was cleverer than he actually was; he was a bloody genius for predicting that nobody else would ever - and I do mean ever - be clever enough to prove it.

As for your final sentence, where have I ever dismissed the views of people who knew the Barretts?

Forgive me, but I thought you were doing it, every time you insisted that the Barretts would have been capable, and were two 'obvious candidates' - unless you had others in mind?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I trust he too will be enlightened as to what a VPN is. That's of course if he doesn't already know. I await his reply

Ah, okay. I live among the technically illiterate and thought it was an innocent question, but I think I now catch your drift. My apologies.

I trust if Lombro2 doesn't know, there's a bloke named San Fran and another named Markus Aurelius Francois that might be able to offer enlightenment.

[Iconoclast]

Sorry to be OT. 1955 was approx when my dad played for them as a semi pro. I would have loved for him to see them win something again in his life time but unfortunately time caught up with him a couple of weeks ago and he passed away without that last one cup. No doubt he will be watching down on them.

Sorry to hear that, Geddy2112. Your dad played for the Toon? Wow, that's immense. He will certainly be watching the match, as - I trust - will mine (died 2014) though my mum (died Nov last year) will doubtless be telling him to keep the noise down ...

My first game was April 12, 1971 when I was 9 - a very dull 0-0 draw at home to Manchester City in which Alan Foggon had a goal disallowed for offside (I can still see it so clearly in my mind's eye) and Tommy Booth for City blasted the ball out of play in the last seconds and sent me flying off my perch on the old stone wall that used to surround the pitch. Fortunately a bloke behind me caught me otherwise who knows what long term damage I could have suffered brain wise.

[Lombro2]

I used to support Allen 100%. That was back when I was still relying on books and film. Zodiac Killer even denied me a membership. Now I can see why. Live and learn with the internet. VPN or no VPN.

[Observer]

Hi, I used to use a VPN. That was back when I had some crazy ideas. I don't have those anymore so I can use a regular public server.

Let me guess! Was the VPN Zodiac Viper attacking the Polish suspect? Someone trying to bring back Arthur Leigh Allen?

Arthur Leigh Allen of course

[Geddy2112]

It was magnificent!

So, it's now 7 finals in my football-following lifetime (5 Newcastle, 2 England) and I've yet to taste victory. Will this 6th for Newcastle finally bring home a trophy? My dad was 25 when he attended the last domestic trophy win (1955). It's got to be a little overdue?

Sorry to be OT. 1955 was approx when my dad played for them as a semi pro. I would have loved for him to see them win something again in his life time but unfortunately time caught up with him a couple of weeks ago and he passed away without that last one cup. No doubt he will be watching down on them.

[Lombro2]

Rubbish, stupid points. Obviously pareidolia. Why don't you wake up? It's an obvious fraud and there's obviously no initials on the wall even though loads of people can see them without any problem whatsoever. You're just biased and spinning things to suit your own argument. It's like a religion to people like you - you'd say anything to keep this fraud going. You're probably making money out of it!



Of course we can rule out the photographer's flash! How come no-one in that room said in the trillionth of a second that the room lit up, "Hey, I see Florence Maybrick's initials on the wall there, James Maybrick must be Jack the Ripper"? Come on - surely no-one's taking this seriously?



Well, you would, wouldn't you?



Bollocks.



Der! Only the brilliant Metropolitan Police detective squad of 1888 - arguably the finest minds the criminal world has ever had to face.



And you would know! Were you there?

Oh - and the diary was obviously written by Mike and Anne Barrett (should have said that first).

Yadda Yadda YADDA Nada

[Lombro2]

Hi, I used to use a VPN. That was back when I had some crazy ideas. I don't have those anymore so I can use a regular public server.

Let me guess! Was the VPN Zodiac Viper attacking the Polish suspect? Someone trying to bring back Arthur Leigh Allen?

[Observer]

It seems rather straight forward. VPN Viper, like the Zodiac, is communicating in such a way that he or she can't be traced.

When someone posts on-line, unbeknownst to them, their computer leaves a sort of fingerprint of their server; if the person sets up a VPN, however, that fingerprint is hidden, so the website owner or the email recipient can't trace the sender's location or identity.

In theory, the website owner should be able to determine whether 'Soothsayer' and 'Peter Wood' and 'Tom Mitchell' and 'Gladiator' and 'Shirley Harrison' and other Maybrick theorists did or did not all post from the same small village in the Outer Hebrides, unless they set up a VPN (A Virtual Private Network) to hide this fact.

I'm not implying all those people were one & the same, however. Only some of them were the same brainwashed acolyte of Paul Feldman.

Thanks for that Mr Palmer, I hope you are well by the way. I am truly enlightened. Fancy that. So using a VPN a poster can assume two identity's and not be detected. Well i'll be blowed. Of course, thanks for stepping in and enlightening me as my question was aimed at Lombro 2. I trust he too will be enlightened as to what a VPN is. That's of course if he doesn't already know. I await his reply

[Iconoclast]

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available. Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

I mean, we know that one is not to use the amount of knowledge of something one has as a guide to whether they should comment or not and therefore absolutely all comments are equally valid regardless of what they are based upon, but I ask you ...

Does someone really need to prove it was a coincidence that there were workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call? Goodness, surely that kind of thing happens every day of the week. What is there to prove?

Yes, indeed, we do know that there were workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call so it really does make you wonder why literally thousands of posts have been placed commenting on the significance (or otherwise) of this, whole websites bearing articles on this subject, and books published discussing what this could all have possibly meant when we should have realised that it was just some workmen in an old house on a day someone else made a telephone call. What on earth was anyone thinking here? When you look at it like this, it's obviously completely irrelevant, isn't it?

And why has anyone made any kind of a fuss of an old scrapbook some ex-scrap metal dealer turned up in London with one day in April 1992. People take books to cities they don't live in all the time. What's the big drama?

And that watch thing that seems to generate tons of comments back and forth? It was just a watch with some scratches in. Hardly unusual!

I swear to someone else's God, sitting on this side of the fence for once is soooooo much easier than being on the other side for thirty years ...

[caz]

Hi Ike,

In #199 you asked for an answer to the question as to why Michael Barrett's affidavit included the wrong date for when Barrett started to expose the fraud. Could that question not reasonably be described as an old canard?

I have to ask though, in regard to your last question, surely you aren’t suggesting that those of us who don’t have years of experience of all things diary should bother contributing?

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available.

Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

Love,

Caz
X