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

[rjpalmer]

I also find it anything but judicious and intelligent for a professor to be so inflexible of mind

So suddenly the supposed initials that you've circled in bright red ink on the Kelly photo --on the wall and her forearm--are NOT what was 'predicted' in the text, but instead the text refers to other initials on other walls that are conveniently out of sight?

Do I have that right?

You've abandoned the citadel at the first hint of danger.

[Iconoclast]

I think Geddy's comment was interesting, and it reminded me of the very judicious and intelligent remarks by Professor Chisholm.
I think it is undeniable that the hoaxer knew of the Kelly photograph and wanted his readers to refer to it. This doesn't pose as debilitating a problem for you (though it IS a problem for you) as it does for the 'old hoax' theorists, though I've been told there are no longer any old hoax theorists in these parts.

Dear readers, please pay attention to what Professor Chisholm was quoted as saying:

This is an erudite point first raised by Professor Alex Chisholm, a lecturer in history from Wales, when he commented on the diary decades ago.
"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective. The diarist does not claim to have left in front of 'them' or the 'fools' but only in front for all eyes to see.' The wall on which these initials were supposed to have been written [and let's also add Kelly's forearm] was at the right side of the room on entry, to the right side of Kelly. The only thing the initials could reasonably be described of as 'in front of' being the police photographer's lens."
Regards.

At no point does Professor Chisholm tell us about the 'F' and 'M' clues Maybrick may well have left to Professor Chisholm's left as he walked hypothetically into Kelly's room, nor those on the wall in front of him, nor those on the wall to his right (but away from the camera's angle), nor those behind him (but also away from the camera's angle).

There may have been none, of course, but how are we to be so certain that there could not have been given that none of us were in that room, hypothetically or otherwise?

I also find it anything but judicious and intelligent for a professor to be so inflexible of mind that he or she is unable to take a reference anything other than 100% literally. How many of us speak and write only with considered and unremitting exactitude?

"I got the eight o'clock bus to town".
"You can't have done. No bus stopped at eight o'clock last evening. We have it on the record that the nearest bus stopped and collected passengers at 8.03 last evening".
"You've got me, officer. I've been tumbled right enough".

If the only initials left were right next to the slaughtered woman, I'm willing to give the author a tiny bit of licence when he stated that he had left them in front for all eyes to see. After all, he might not unreasonably have thought to himself, "Where the hell else will they be looking, for gawd's sake???".

[rjpalmer]

a concerted campaign by RJ to squeeze every single piece of information (whether known or rumour) into a Barrett hoax theory.

Hilarious, Ike!

Compared to what? Your concerted campaign to squeeze every single piece of information into a Maybrick wrote-it theory?

Why am I not allowed to fight my corner while you fight yours?

I think Geddy's comment was interesting, and it reminded me of the very judicious and intelligent remarks by Professor Chisholm.

I think it is undeniable that the hoaxer knew of the Kelly photograph and wanted his readers to refer to it. This doesn't pose as debilitating a problem for you (though it IS a problem for you) as it does for the 'old hoax' theorists, though I've been told there are no longer any old hoax theorists in these parts.

[Iconoclast]

"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective.

No, it absolutely does not.

In other words, the hoaxer was aware of the Kelly photograph.

No, this does not logically follow unless you are illogically working from the premise that the only view available in that room was the one the photographer caught when he (or she) took MJK1.

I would add that the hoaxer is almost begging his or her readers to refer to the Kelly photograph in order to look for the 'clue' that the 'fools' could not find.

This is simply not correct. The author of the scrapbook is clearly saying that his wife's initials had some role to play in Kelly's room by the time he left it.

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

It is a puzzle which the best we can hope to do is solve through the lens of MJK1 because we have no other lens with which to view Kelly's room (I exclude the photograph of the table here - others might wish to add it back in).

The hoaxer also assumed that the reader would have access to the police photograph in order to solve this puzzle ...

This is not correct. There is no evidence that the author even knew that a photograph had been taken. His (or her) comment about Florence's initials could have referred to any number of other locations in Kelly's room, but we only have one lens into it, not five or ten or twenty, so most of her room is not recorded on film for us to view in detail.

... which again rationally dates the diary to the 1960s or later, when the photograph first obtained wide circulation.

Self-evidently not so.

Before that date, the photo was either in the off-limits City of London Police materials or in one exceedingly rare book in French--so rare that to this day only one library in the UK owns a copy, and that Library was only founded after the diary was published.

It doesn't matter where the photograph was or is stored. The fact that there is a photograph tells us nothing about what else Maybrick could have left 'for all to see' in Kelly's room which was unfortunately not photographed.

Dear readers, I implore you all to think long and hard before assuming that these terrible simplicities are anything other than a concerted campaign by RJ to squeeze every single piece of information (whether known or rumour) into a Barrett hoax theory.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock.

I'm still amused, twenty-four hours later, that I make one suggestion, one brilliant and perceptive suggestion to use Ike's vernacular, that the diary's text contains puzzles to solve, and Barrett was a puzzle maker for Look-In Magazine, and Ike loses his mind, screaming it is unfair, prejudicial, close-minded, etc. etc.

Can you imagine if it was recently discovered that Maybrick wrote puzzles for a Victorian magazine? Just imagine the ecstasy of delight from Ike if this was discovered--another jewel to be included in Society's Pillar.

And yet, compared to my simple suggestion, Ike has written a whole book arguing the text was written by Maybrick, using everything from anagrams to false statements about the alleged obscurity of his parents' graves, and Ike promotes this as judicious, intellectual, open-minded, etc.

This is what we are up against and why discussing anything with someone this fanatical and pot/kettle/black-ish is a very poor choice of morning hobbies.

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

Again, Ike, I was being overly generous regarding Baxendale and his considered 'opinion' in that report. I'll go further than that and say that I was being less than accurate in my interpretation of Baxendale's own words.
In case Herlock is still labouring under a misapprehension - which I may inadvertently have helped to provide - that Baxendale was putting the year 1946 as the earliest possible date of origin for the diary, I must clarify this before it becomes embedded and repeated in posts droning on until the crack of doom.
Baxendale stated that nigrosine was in the diary ink and this was not used in writing inks before the First World War.
He was wrong.
Baxendale didn't have any information on when it began to be used after the first war, but stated that it didn't become common until after the second: hence his opinion that the diary likely [only 'likely', mind - not 'most probably' or 'certainly'] originated since 1945, when nigrosine was commonly used in inks.
He was wrong.
Nigrosine - assuming he correctly detected its presence in the diary ink - had been in general use in writing inks from the 1870s.
It's another 'topping myself' moment, like the one which proved the phrase had appeared in print back in the 1870s, and hadn't waited until 1958 to make its sparkling debut, as originally claimed by another expert.
I wonder if experts feel like topping themselves when the amateurs have a dabble and expose them for being out of their professional depth. Having their pants pulled down and facing humiliation is not designed to make them feel all warm and cuddly towards the person who has done it to them.
If the ink being 'freely soluble' had been uppermost in Baxendale's brain back in 1992, as a clear indicator of a very recent forgery when he first examined it, his biggest mistake was to date the diary using nigrosine as the killer blow.
But needs must when the devil drives, so poor old Baxendale has been chastised ever since by having his priorities switched round by more amateurs, to make the ink's solubility the killer blow instead, and a better fit for the magical but obligatory April Fools' Day Creation.
Love,
Caz
X

I know I'm heavily invested and biased, but this is still a brilliant post in my opinion, Caz. I appreciate that we aren't supposed to reply with superlatives (and certainly not with the entire post re-posted), but both seem fair on this occasion.

That said, let me justify my actions by posing this question: How likely is it that Baxendale would have laboured his 'freely soluble' comment to Chittenden which he so blatantly underplayed in his second report to Smith a year earlier if Smith's dealings with Baxendale had not been so unexpectedly confrontational (and by 'confrontational', I mean challenging from an academic and 'expert' perspective)?

That is, was Baxendale's ego so thoroughly piqued that he leapt into Chittenden's corner once the latter had presumably assured the former that he (Baxendale) had been dealing with a hoax all along and should therefore feel on safe ground when commenting in a way he certainly didn't the previous year?

[Iconoclast]

Oops a daisy - a rather obvious gaff here:

During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

This should obviously have read:

During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

In truth, I think I'm right in saying that Tony Devereux was housebound in 1991 (not in 1990) but it's a small point and I'm willing to leave "During this period" as blue as I'm that kind of guy.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

If we are to believe the likes of RJ and Orsam, Baxendale told Maurice Chittenden of The Sunday Times almost a year after he wrote his various reports that (and I paraphrase here) the ink was pretty much dripping out of the pages onto the floor they were that recently laid down.

Begs the question, though: why not just say that in your report? 'It was dripping wet', 'I got drenched in it', 'It must have been laid down a few months ago'.

I just can't understand why a guy who freely admitted he was very badly wrong about the properties of ink and therefore asked for his report to be kept from public view would not at least mention that it was clearly put on the paper in 1992.

I'm beat!

Cheers,

Ike

Again, Ike, I was being overly generous regarding Baxendale and his considered 'opinion' in that report. I'll go further than that and say that I was being less than accurate in my interpretation of Baxendale's own words.

In case Herlock is still labouring under a misapprehension - which I may inadvertently have helped to provide - that Baxendale was putting the year 1946 as the earliest possible date of origin for the diary, I must clarify this before it becomes embedded and repeated in posts droning on until the crack of doom.

Baxendale stated that nigrosine was in the diary ink and this was not used in writing inks before the First World War.

He was wrong.

Baxendale didn't have any information on when it began to be used after the first war, but stated that it didn't become common until after the second: hence his opinion that the diary likely [only 'likely', mind - not 'most probably' or 'certainly'] originated since 1945, when nigrosine was commonly used in inks.

He was wrong.

Nigrosine - assuming he correctly detected its presence in the diary ink - had been in general use in writing inks from the 1870s.

It's another 'topping myself' moment, like the one which proved the phrase had appeared in print back in the 1870s, and hadn't waited until 1958 to make its sparkling debut, as originally claimed by another expert.

I wonder if experts feel like topping themselves when the amateurs have a dabble and expose them for being out of their professional depth. Having their pants pulled down and facing humiliation is not designed to make them feel all warm and cuddly towards the person who has done it to them.

If the ink being 'freely soluble' had been uppermost in Baxendale's brain back in 1992, as a clear indicator of a very recent forgery when he first examined it, his biggest mistake was to date the diary using nigrosine as the killer blow.

But needs must when the devil drives, so poor old Baxendale has been chastised ever since by having his priorities switched round by more amateurs, to make the ink's solubility the killer blow instead, and a better fit for the magical but obligatory April Fools' Day Creation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Firstly, I'm glad you accept that there was no real risk the Barretts, assuming they were the forgers, in submitting the diary for publication
but when you say it was "a stupid thing to do" are you referring to not writing it in Maybrick's handwriting or creating the diary in general? Either way, a number of people wanted to pay them to publish it and I’ve always been under the impression that the book sold a lot of copies so perhaps the forgers were cleverer than you think?

If you believe that they "obviously seemed to fear" a thief or gang of thieves then of course you are likely to think that they obtained the diary from a thief but the idea that they were afraid of thief seems to derive from your imagination only Lombro.

There was no real risk to the Barretts, assuming they weren't forgers, so it's another argument that goes both ways.

The real risk in that case would have been that the diary's rightful owner might miss it and want it back. This would have been on Anne's mind when Mike first brought the diary home wrapped in its brown paper, regardless of what he chose to tell her about it.

There is some evidence that Mike feared being beaten to a pulp over the diary, which would be understandable if he had originally pinched it from the pincher. After all, Mike was already a fully unpaid-up and documented 'late payer'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The fact that they were under no threat for their supposed "creative writing" project doesn't help you.

1. It's still a stupid thing to do so who cares if there was a legitimate threat or not

2. The real threat that they obviously seemed to fear would come from ratting out or exposing a thief or a gang of thieves. That helps the Fence Theory again.

My hunch - which will no doubt be rejected - is that Mike conned Eddie out of the diary with no cash changing hands, on the pretext of having 'contacts' who would know how best to handle and place it. In short, he nicked it off the nicker. Mike promised to get back to Eddie when he knew more. When Eddie learned that Mike had only gone and hooked a book publisher, and not just some private collector who would pay in cash and ask no questions, he started to worry about the consequences, and had that conversation with Brian Rawes in the drive of Battlecrease on Friday 17th July 1992 - Eddie's second and final stint at the house, no doubt bringing back memories of the first.

In May 1994, Mike made several large withdrawals from his bank account, every other working day until he was back in the red again, with nothing paid off his mortgage by June, when he gave Harold Brough this as his motive for having written the diary in the first place.

"Go figure", as they say in the Land of the Free.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

For RJ ...

(The fonts appear to have a mind of their own, I'm afraid.)

Let's see how I do (I am doing this 'live' so I have no idea what the outcome will be). Blue is confirmed or accepted. Red is asserted but not confirmed. Grey is irrelevant to the hoax claim.

Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995
From a sworn affidavit:

I MICHAEL BARRETT, make oath and state as follows:-

That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant.

I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident., for which I am attending Hospital as an out-patient.

I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand.

Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary").

Nobody will believe me and in fact some very influential people in the Publishing and Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far as to introduce a new and complete story of the original facts of the Diary and how it came to light. [Only his wife Anne had introduced "a new and complete story of the original facts".]

The facts of this matter are outlined as follows:-

I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came a time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possbility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter. I felt Maybrick was an ideal candidate for Jack the Ripper. Most important of all, he could not defend himself. He was not 'Jack the Ripper' of that I am certain, but, times, places, visits to London and all that fitted. It was to (sic) easey (sic).

I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".

Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration.

Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper.In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book,I cannot remember their name,she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.When this Diary arrived in teh post I decided it was of no use [This cannot be known as we do not know what his purpose was for seeking it], it was very small.My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it and in fact he gave me L50 towards expences which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.[There has never been any evidence whatsoever of Mike Barrett entering this or any other auction house]

It was about 11.30am in the morning when I attended the Auctioneers. I found a photograph Album which contained approximately, approximately (sic) 125 pages of phootgraphs. They were old photographs and they were all to do with teh 1914/1918 1st World War. This Album was part of lot No.126 which was for auction with a 'brass compass', it looked to me like a 'seaman's Compass', it was round faced with a square encasement, all of which was brass, it was marked on the face, North South, East and West in heavy lettering. I particularly noticed that the compass had no 'fingers'.

When the bidding stated (sic) I noticed another man who was interested in the itmes (sic) he was smartly dressed, I would say in his middle forties, he was interested in the photographs. I noticed that his collar and tie were imaculate and I think he was a Military man.

This man big up to L45 and then I bid L50 and the other man dropped out.

At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid L50. This ticked was stamped. I woman, slim build, aged about 35/40 years dealt with me and she asked me my name, which I gave as P Williams, XXXXXXXXXXXXX I think I gave the number as 47.When I was asked for details about me the name Williams arose because I purchased my house from a Mr P Williams, the road name I used is in fact the next street to my mums address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased.

I was then told to return return (sic) my ticket to the Office, but I did not do this and left with the Photograph Album and Compass.

When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.

I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.

I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife.

This last [left] 64 pages inside the Album which Anne and I decided would be the Diary. Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.

This all happened late January 1990 and on the same day that Anne and I bought the nibs we then decided to purchase the ink elsewhere and we decided to make our way to the Bluecoat Chambers, in fact we had a drink in the Empire Pub in Hanover Street on the way.

Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.

We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot.

Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN.

Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake.

Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Ediated by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'. [Although Barrett is acknowledged as the first person to uncover the source of this quotation, there is no evidence whatsoever that he used it as part of a hoax]

Page 184 in Volume 2 referrs (sic).

When I disposed of the photographs from the Album by giving them to William Graham, I kept one back. This photograph was of a Grave, with a Donkey standing nearby. I had actualy written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor,which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me.

When I eventually did the deal with Robert Smith, he took possession of the Diary and it went right out of my control.There is little doubt in my mind that I have been hoodwinked or if you like conned myself. My inexperience in the Publishing game has been my downfall, whilst all around me are making money, it seems that I am left out of matters, and my Solicitors are now engaged in litigation. I have even had bills to cover expenses incurred by the author of the book, Shirley Harrison. [These bills contractually belonged to Harrison and Barrett in equal measure.]

I finally decided in November 1993 that enough was enough and I made it clear from that time on that the Diary of Jack the Ripper was a forgery, this brought a storm down on me, abuse and threats followed and attacks on my character as Paul Feldman led this attack, because I suppose he had the most to gain from discrediting me.

Mr. Feldman became so obsessed with my efforts to bare the truth of the matter, that he started to threaten me, he took conttrol (sic) of my wife who left me and my child and he rang me up continuously threatening and bullying me and telling me I would never see my family again. On one occasion people were banging on my windows as Feldman threatened my life over the phone.I became so frightened that I sort (sic) the help of a Private Detective Alan Gray and complaints were made to the Police which I understand are still being pursued [This is generous of me as there is no proof that Feldman or anyone else was threatening Barrett - on one occasion an unknown person had banged on one of his windows one night, presumably as they were passing.]

It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of L20,000 before the end of the month.She was all over meand we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self. She insisted Mr Feldman was a very nice Jewish man who was only trying to help her. My wife was clearly under the influence of this man Feldman who I understand had just become separated from his own wife. It seemed very odd to me that my wife who had been hidden in London for long enough by Feldman should suddenly re-appear and work on me for Mr Feldman.

I have now decided to make this affidavit to make the situation clear with regard to the Forgery of the Jack the Ripper Diary, which Anne Barrett and I did in case anything happenes (sic) to me.I would hate to leave at this stage the name of Mr. Maybrick as a tarnished serial killer when as far as I know, he was not a killer.

I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary.

I give my name so history do tell what love can do to a gentleman born, Yours Truly -- Michael Barrett. [The line that Barrett quotes here actually reads, "I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born" - although he quoted it frequently, he never once got the line he claimed he wrote correct.]

Sworn at Liverpool in the (Signed)
County of Merseyside, this
5th day of January 1995. Before me: (Signed)

A Solicitor Empowered to Administer Oaths

D.P. HARDY & CO.,
Imperial Chambers,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I think that makes eleven claims in blue for which there is good evidence that they were true or proven or confirmed on the record by someone other than Mike Barrett.

Honestly, dear readers, having read it again, do you feel it's a stonewall "He obviously did it" kind of document or an act of a desperate man who had lost everything and was trying whatever he had left in him to get some of it back (the attention, his ex-wife, his daughter, perhaps some money for booze, et cetera)? If it's the former, which bits persuade you the most, I wonder?

I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what life can do to a Scouser of very average intelligence.
Yours truly
Ike Iconoclast
Dated this eighth day of February 2025

[caz]

I don't think you're understanding me correctly Caz. I wasn't making any form a circular argument because I wasn't arguing that Michael Barrett was the forger. The point I was making was straightforward one - If Mike was the forger, as some people have suggested, and if the diary was exposed as a forgery, he wasn't in any serious legal peril because he never vouched for the diary's authenticity.

You must agree with that statement, surely. And it has to be predicated on the basis that Mike was the forger because there's no other way of expressing it. The only danger for Mike (as the forger) would have been if it was proven that he didn't receive the diary from Tony Devereux but was responsible for creating it. Something which would have been difficult to do. Only then would he have been in the you-know-what.

And that is precisely the point, Herlock.

How could he not have been in the you-know-what IF the diary HAD been created and handwritten by his wife as a bit of creative fiction, and IF he had presented THIS [instead of what he did present] as a possibly genuine confessional diary written by JM/JtR?

But you are probably right in a way, because IF that had been the case, he'd have been out of Doreen's door with a flea in his ear and her boot up his arse, faster than he could ejaculate the proverbial: "Oh, sugar lumps!", and Anne and her father would have wasted their money on the return train fare to London and the various raw materials, and the time and effort would all have been for nought.

Now, the only reason I wrote what I did was because Kattrup had said in the post to which I was responding, "Diary Defenders usually portray the risk to Barrett's as immense". So the only purpose of my post was to say, in agreement with Kattrup, that, really, there was very little risk to the Barretts.

See above.

For that reason, the rest of your post about another unnamed forger makes no sense to me. You seem to be trying to make an entirely different point which bears no relation to mine or Kattrup's. This is that an unidentified forger would not have bothered recreating Maybrick's handwriting in the diary (even though they presumably could have done) because there was no risk to them if the diary was shown not to have been by James Maybrick. Leaving aside that I can't fathom why they would have wanted to create such a diary in the first place nor how it ended up with Michael Barrett, I could just as easily say that because there was no risk to them of ever being arrested for fraud, because they were unknown, they might as well have attempted to recreate Maybrick's handwriting to make the diary appear far more convincing. But when talking about unknown people with unknown motives it just seems to pointless to discuss it.

Which, I guess, is why it's more comfortable to keep the Barretts in custody, so everything can be argued from the point of view of their involvement and you don't need to go any deeper - except that the evidence doesn't stack up, because the people in the story were real, and not complete fools. Do you seriously imagine that Martin Fido, for one, would have agreed to get involved in the first place IF he'd been presented with a genuine Barrett version of the diary? Have you the faintest idea what that would have looked like, in comparison with the one you are stuck with? Oh, I forgot. It doesn't matter, because if you shut your eyes and only believe hard enough, then the one you are stuck with can BE a genuine Barrett, and you don't need to know if that is true or even likely.

You then made another separate and disconnected point about whether the money would have gone up in flames "when Anne tried to burn it". The simple answer is that if the diary had been burnt there would have been no money to have been made from it.

No s..t, Herlock. My point was directly linked with your argument that this was a forgery created for financial gain. Forgers don't generally try to destroy a forgery that they are expecting to get 'authenticated' and make them loads of money - another of your arguments.

But what independent evidence is there that Anne really did try to burn it? She certainly didn't do a very good job of it! I may be misremembering Caz but didn’t I read something about her insisting on the diary being kept at the bank because of her fear of it going up in a house fire?

I don't expect you to read and absorb every post here, but I have gone into this one recently, Herlock. I don't recall anyone suggesting that Anne had 'insisted' on the diary being put in the bank, which would have implied it was against Mike's wishes, and the evidence we do have isn't clear if it was his idea or hers. We only know that when Anne first spoke to Doreen, a few days after the London trip, she explained it was a precaution in case of fire or theft.

My hunch, which I am happy for people to reject - and they will - is that Anne simply didn't want the bloody thing in the house, one way or another. And who could blame her? It was a destructive force in Mike's hands from day one of its known existence. It has destroyed marriages and friendships, caused financial ruin and continues to this day to make a small handful of internet hoax busters fired up and angry.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

I'll borrow one from your playbook, Ike.

I'd name all the elements right here & now if I thought for a moment, you wouldn't immediately spin them.

I count six, arguably seven, elements in Barrett's confession that have been directly or indirectly confirmed.

But I'm currently toying with the idea of writing up my final analysis of the diary so I don't need to discuss it again. Something along the lines of 'the top twenty reasons we know the Diary is a modern fake, and that Barrett was undoubtedly involved.'

I'll give you a heads up when or if it drops. I have other irons in the fire.

[rjpalmer]

I'd give you the very quotation if I thought for a moment RJ wouldn't immediately spin it. .

I enjoyed the above comment from Ike, Herlock.

It's a good companion piece to this recent one:

It is customary - especially when challenged - to be clear on a citation but if you just want to make a claim here without backing it up, I guess there's little anyone can do (bar wonder ether you are correct or not)?

But please don't cite reasons why you won't when perhaps people are wondering whether in truth it is more that you can't.

I, of course, immediately posted the relevant citation from Dr. Joe Nickell (even though Nickell's quote should have been obvious to even the most neophyte Maybrickian) to prove my accuracy.

What is stopping Ike from jumping in if he has the quote? Or are people now wondering whether in truth Ike can't give the quotation?

As for me, I'm afraid I have little insight into the accuracy of Caroline's claims. I'm still waiting for evidence that Barrett 'immediately invited the experts to examine' the diary.

I was under the impression, based on her theories, that Barrett didn't immediately invite any experts to examine it, and within minutes of seeing the diary called up a literary agent.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that worrisome. Barrett's behavior compares unfavorably even to the behavior of Russell Edwards and Tim Atkinson who did seek expert opinion. Mike went straight to the fountain of cash flow and there's not even any solid evidence that the diary physically existed when he made that first call to London under the alias "Mr. Williams."

[Iconoclast]

What elements?

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

Did you mean the bit where he gave his name truthfully this time?