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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe Anne penned the diary, Herlock, in either her normal handwriting, or so heavily disguised as to become unrecognisable and unidentifiable as her own. It's not for me to prove she didn't have the skill or the motivation, any more than it's up to us to prove the real James Maybrick didn't write it.

It's my personal conclusion that it's not Anne's handiwork, based on the entirety of the evidence to date, from 9th March 1992 where our story begins. There is no reliable independent evidence that anyone knew about the diary, in physical or theoretical form, prior to that Monday.

You are, of course, free to dispute my conclusion by reaching a different one, based on your own knowledge of the subject and the people most closely involved. But questions along the lines of: 'But why don't you believe it was Anne?', followed by: 'It was a simple enough question, so if you won't answer it, is it because you can't?' are not useful, because the answer may be very far from simple, and based on more factors than we've both had hot dinners.

Love,

Caz
X

If the diary wasn't physically written until after 9th March 1992, how could there possibly any independent evidence about the diary in a physical form before that date?

And if the only people who knew about it in theoretical form prior to it being physically created were the forgers themselves, how could there possibly be any "independent" evidence for it?

So, if that's your reason for ruling out the diary being Anne's handiwork, it doesn't seem very convincing Caz.

Also, if your own belief was that the diary was created before it reached the Barretts, how does that square with your belief that someone else (other than Maybrick or the Barretts) created it prior to 9th March? After all, if you said to us "I think Mr X created it in 1963" why wouldn't the absence of any independent evidence of its existence prior to 9th March 1992 also lead us (and you!) to doubt that it's Mr X's handiwork?

That doesn’t seem very logical.

My question to you about why you don't believe it's Anne's handwriting was really directed to whether there is anything in the diary handwriting itself, compared to Anne's normal handwriting, which means we can rule Anne out as being the diary's author, in the way that we can, I think, rule out Mike. I note that there appears to be nothing.

For that reason, I don't think it can safely be ruled out that the diary is in Anne's disguised hand. Imo of course.

[Iconoclast]

Didn't Martin Earl tell Barrett that nearly all of the pages in the 1891 diary were blank? Might that not be why a somewhat desperate Barrett agreed to purchase it?

Source, please, for this blatantly convenient claim which I've never heard of before.

I'm pleased to hear that you don't dispute that the wording of the advert is consistent with an an attempt to get hold of authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders. Thank you. That is helpful.

You don't need Caz or anyone else's confirmation that the wording is consistent, blah, blah, blah. That's a statement of the blindingly obvious, but not necessarily a statement of the truth. You don't really think that's helpful, you're just trying to make it look like Caz has scored an own goal. Give it a rest, man - your comments are so transparent.

What do you say is so wrong with the wording of the advert, bearing in mind that it needed to be short and concise to keep the cost down, and, obviously, keeping hindsight out of it?

OMG, what were we doing not that many posts ago???????

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

I doubt this will interest you, but regarding the claim that Barrett "immediately" subjected the diary to an examination by "experts", I thought the following statement made to me by Keith Skinner might be of interest. (2-16-2018 'Acquiring a Victorian Diary' my emphasis added in bold).

"I know that people who have met Anne Graham find this very difficult to believe as she is a bright, intelligent lady and would have surely realised the potential value of a family heirloom. She may not have connected it to Maybrick although she did know the Granny Formby association with the Maybrick trial. But against this seemingly irrational behaviour of secreting, via a third party, the diary to her husband, has to be factored in the state of her marital situation and relationship with Mike. I had wanted to know why it had taken Mike about 5 weeks to take the diary to London to which I think Anne said it was just to do with arrangements for Caroline. But Anne had also told me how hard she tried to persuade Mike to drop the idea of bringing in people from the outside to examine the diary as she feared it would lead to the discovery that she had given it to Devereux to give to Mike, on the basis their marriage was at a point where Mike had lost all of his self esteem and was rejecting anything that came from Anne in her efforts to restore it. I remember Anne telling me that, once she had resigned herself to the reality that Mike was definitely going to take the diary to London, she thought the business appointment might as well be done professionally with an accompanying transcript. This is why I had assumed Mike had taken a copy of the transcript, printed off from his word processor, with him to London on April 13th 1992."

Make of it what you will.

Anne's rationale--a highly strange one--is that an examination of the diary would lead back to her alleged gambit with Devereux, which is bizarre. How could it? Devereux was dead and they were hardly close associates. It's sounds like another one of Anne's evasions.

Could there have been a more fundamental and obvious reason why Anne didn't want the diary examined by anyone? (Dismissing, for the moment, the possibility that she wasn't just lying to Keith. But then we have to factor in her distraught behavior to Audrey Johnson, etc).

I have my own reasons for rejecting the following suggestion, but Paul Begg once floated the theory that the Diary was created by Anne Graham and Tony Devereux as a scheme to occupy Barrett's time, so he would stay out of the boozer and focus again on the writing career that we now know he had in the mid-1980s.

Martin Fido, as previously mentioned, believed Anne wrote the diary, apparently as a work of fiction, but Barrett was the moving force behind the fraudulent relic.

Alan Gray, in rejecting Barrett's authorship, also believed Anne and Devereux wrote it.

I'm not insisting that any of these people were necessarily correct, but I do dismiss any insinuation that the idea is far-fetched and insane rubbish dreamed up by people who were not there in 1993-1996.

They were there--unlike every current contributor to this discussion.

Hi Roger,

I'm still not aware of anyone who knew the Barretts personally in the relevant period who has said they weren't capable of jointly forging the diary, even though bizarrely, I've been told that I've dismissed those views!

It seems obvious to me that if Barrett had forged the diary, he needed someone to examine and validate it, otherwise he wasn't going to make any money from it. He would, no doubt have wanted this to happen as soon as possible. It's hard to imagine what he (if the forger) must have felt when Baxendale said it was a forgery - the game was over in his mind, I would assume - but somehow Harrison ploughed on with it to publication even after the Rendell team also declared it to be a forgery. Barrett strikes me as having a paranoid personality so I could understand if the imminent exposure of him having been a journalist put so much strain on him that he confessed in June 1994. Or at least, that all seems plausible to me. I don't know if that's what actually happened.

[rjpalmer]

but how then do we explain why Anne Barrett did not put a stop to it once it got as far as Robert Smith shelling out the greenbacks

This is where I must stop you, Ike, and point out the glaring gaslighting hypocrisy of this line of attack.

I could just as easily ask why Anne didn't stop Mike from selling a fenced diary that her ex-felon husband showed up with one day in March 1992.

This is merely the pot calling the kettle black--an art form that the Diary Gang has perfected.

I'll be scolded for not quoting her directly, but I'm pretty sure your friend Caz has said, and fairly recently but certainly in the archives, that "one didn't say no to Mike" once he got something into his head. Anne herself has said this.

So, what was Anne supposed to do?

I'm merely one of the few honest commentators here (I'll, of course, included Herlock) in that I'm not wishing-away or ignoring Anne's convoluted and contradictory behavior. As far as I can gather, I am the only one who fully acknowledges it, and I admit it can be interpreted in different ways. I just don't like the gaslighting.

On one hand, a 'chirpy and friendly' Anne, almost out of the gate, talks to Doreen on the phone, with not a whisper of her not approving of the diary's publication. She also signed the collaboration agreement.

At another time, she tells her friend Keith that she tried to burn the diary and didn't want it published, and I feel some pull to accommodate Keith's belief that her account was credible, especially since it would have been an odd thing to 'coach' her daughter who seemingly confirmed it.

On one hand, Anne fully cooperates with Mike and even types up his bogus research notes--knowing they had to have to been bogus, which reeks of cooperation.

Yet again, Anne's friend Audrey, with no axe to grind, reports that Anne showed up for work, wildly upset about her husband "writing a book."

Shirley Harrison also reported, more than once, that it was like pulling teeth to get Anne to attend the book launch. That doesn't sound like a happy camper.

You and Caroline might find Anne's behavior consistent, but I'm not that delusional or incurious.

So, what is your idea, Ike, --that Anne was a fully willing and enthusiastic confederate in Mike's plan to peddle Eddy Lyon's stolen goods?? If so, why was she moping to Audrey?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I make no apologies for noticing that all was not well with Anne Graham, no matter how much my observation is ridiculed by the members of this debate.

I'm correct in noticing it.

[Iconoclast]

This is where I must stop you, Ike, and point out the glaring gaslighting hypocrisy of this line of attack.
I could just as easily ask why Anne didn't stop Mike from selling a fenced diary that her ex-felon husband showed up with one day in March 1992.
This is merely the pot calling the kettle black--an art form that the Diary Gang has perfected.
I'll be scolded for not quoting her directly, but I'm pretty sure your friend Caz has said, and fairly recently but certainly in the archives, that "one didn't say no to Mike" once he got something into his head. Anne herself has said this.
So, what was Anne supposed to do?
I'm merely one of the few honest commentators here (I'll, of course, included Herlock) in that I'm not wishing-away or ignoring Anne's convoluted and contradictory behavior. As far as I can gather, I am the only one who fully acknowledges it, and I admit it can be interpreted in different ways. I just don't like the gaslighting.
On one hand, a 'chirpy and friendly' Anne, almost out of the gate, talks to Doreen on the phone, with not a whisper of her not approving of the diary's publication. She also signed the collaboration agreement.
At another time, she tells her friend Keith that she tried to burn the diary and didn't want it published, and I feel some pull to accommodate Keith's belief that her account was credible, especially since it would have been an odd thing to 'coach' her daughter who seemingly confirmed it.
On one hand, Anne fully cooperates with Mike and even types up his bogus research notes--knowing they had to have to been bogus, which reeks of cooperation.
Yet again, Anne's friend Audrey, with no axe to grind, reports that Anne showed up for work, wildly upset about her husband "writing a book."
Shirley Harrison also reported, more than once, that it was like pulling teeth to get Anne to attend the book launch. That doesn't sound like a happy camper.
You and Caroline might find Anne's behavior consistent, but I'm not that delusional or incurious.
So, what is your idea, Ike, --that Anne was a fully willing and enthusiastic confederate in Mike's plan to peddle Eddy Lyon's stolen goods?? If so, why was she moping to Audrey?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I make no apologies for noticing that all was not well with Anne Graham, no matter how much my observation is ridiculed by the members of this debate.
I'm correct in noticing it.

Good God, man, I think you need to take the same anger management classes Mike J.G. and I attend!

All your post proved was how very unlikely Paul Begg's tentative suggestion was that Tony D. and Anne had created the scrapbook to give Mike something to do.

Not sure if the rant was needed?

I worry constantly about your blood pressure, mate ...

[Iconoclast]

His advert didn't refer to dated or undated documents. It just asked for a diary from a certain time period. No mention was made of dates. An 1891 diary would have been suitable if it hadn't had a date on it, or if the date could have been removed.

(My emphasis.)

Have you actually read the advert?

‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’

Do I need to emphasise the word 'dating'? Is this not precisely what you meant?

[rjpalmer]

I worry constantly about your blood pressure, mate ...

My blood pressure is fine, Ike, but your evasive response is duly noted.

I am constantly scolded for the suggestion that Anne was a less than an enthusiastic participant in Mike's scheme (forgery, but let's pretend its stolen goods) even though the record suggests otherwise. Or at least some of the record. I'm willing to hear the counter-argument from the likes of Orsam or Peter Birchwood, but not from the 'gang of fencers' crowd.

And pro tip (not that I'm much of a tippler): if you want beer to pour over your breakfast Wheaties, it's usual to buy it the night before.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Roger,

I'm still not aware of anyone who knew the Barretts personally in the relevant period who has said they weren't capable of jointly forging the diary, even though bizarrely, I've been told that I've dismissed those views!

I'm not aware of any such statements about the Barretts' alleged inability, Herlock, and there is virtually nothing in any of the Diary books about the opinions of Mike and Anne's acquaintances. It's a strange claim.

My understanding, from Inside Story, is that Barrett had nearly no friends, other than Tony Devereux, and he was dead. I don't know who these people supposedly were. I do know that one of the Devereux sisters, on hearing Barrett described as a 'scrap metal merchant,' was quite surprised because she had heard that Mike was a journalist.

As for Anne, the only friend I recall being mentioned is Audrey, and she remembered Anne complaining about Mike writing a book but would say no more because she didn't want to be seen as betraying Anne's trust.

To me, that sounds more like the statement of someone who may have suspected Mike, rather than one who was eager to rubbish the idea!

If these people are ever identified, let me know.

Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Source, please, for this blatantly convenient claim which I've never heard of before.



You don't need Caz or anyone else's confirmation that the wording is consistent, blah, blah, blah. That's a statement of the blindingly obvious, but not necessarily a statement of the truth. You don't really think that's helpful, you're just trying to make it look like Caz has scored an own goal. Give it a rest, man - your comments are so transparent.



OMG, what were we doing not that many posts ago???????

The source for Martin Earl telling Barrett that nearly all the pages in the 1891 diary were blank is Caz. I mentioned her post a couple of days ago in this very thread. It's #5701 in your "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" thread, posted on August 4, 2020,

It's always helpful in a debate to find common ground. It means we can move on to another topic. So I don't know what you mean when you say I don't really think it's helpful. I thought it was very helpful, and I was grateful to Caz, which is why I said so.

I'm not aware that anyone explained to me "many posts ago" what is so wrong with the wording of the advert, bearing in mind that it needed to be short and concise to keep the cost down, and keeping hindsight out of it, least of all Caz. That's why I asked her. If you think she's explained it, feel free to identify the post number.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This wasn't addressed directly to me, but I am the 'she' in this context - and also the cat's mother, as Monty is reminding me because I'm not paying him enough attention.

I merely meant people who had ever known either Mike or Anne on a personal basis, socially or otherwise, before or after 1992, who would have been more qualified than most of us here to comment on whether or not these two individuals would have been willing, able or likely, to collaborate on a literary hoax at any point during their marriage. Usually you get a few coming out of the woodwork as a result of a big local story, whether it was when the first diary book was published in October 1993 and became a bestseller, or when Mike hit the headlines again in June 1994, with his claim to have forged it. But in this case, nobody who knew Mike wanted a piece of the action by publicly supporting his claim, with any relevant inside knowledge about him as a person, and nobody who knew Anne as a person is known to have said that she would have been loyal enough to stand by Mike and say nothing, let alone help him to make it less of a complete shambles, all the while he had supposedly been planning and trying to pull off a diary scam more audacious than Konrad Kujau before him.

Love,

Caz
X

The previous paragraph of mine to the one you quoted commenced "In fairness to Caz..." so you were the "she" being referred to.

You still haven't identified those people whose views you say I've dismissed nor what those views are. If I don't know what they are, how can I have dismissed them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

(My emphasis.)

Have you actually read the advert?

‘Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages’

Do I need to emphasise the word 'dating'? Is this not precisely what you meant?

Ike, mate, you don't seem to have understood what I was saying. My post of 5th February, which for some weird reason you've only decided to reply to today, began "His advert didn't refer to dated or undated documents." This was in response to your post which read: "If Barrett had sought a dated document from 1870-1900, it could not have been to forge a Maybrick diary for reasons that he was brown bread by the middle of 1889. He could have sought an undated one from earlier than 1870 or later than 1900 ...". So, when I went on to punctuate my point by saying "No mention was made of dates", it meant no mention was made in the advert specifically of dated or undated documents. To ask for a diary "dating from 1880 to 1890" is to ask for a diary manufactured or created in that period. It doesn't follow that it has to be dated. That's why I said no mention was made of the diary being dated or undated. You always seem to assume that by asking for, say, an 1889 diary, that document had to be dated 1889 on its face in a way that this date couldn't be removed. In my mind, Barrett was likely thinking of a diary in which someone had written entries dated by the diarist as being from days in 1889 but which entries could easily be ripped out from the diary to leave only blank pages. So there was a date range mentioned, of course, but not any specific dates as such for which the required diary needed to be dated.

[Iconoclast]

The source for Martin Earl telling Barrett that nearly all the pages in the 1891 diary were blank is Caz. I mentioned her post a couple of days ago in this very thread. It's #5701 in your "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" thread, posted on August 4, 2020,

Then I must apologise as I read your comment as meaning that Earl had suggested to Barrett that the pages of the 1891 diary were completely blank (i.e., no dates).

Having checked #5,701 of The Greatest Thread of All, I realise that Earl had told Barrett the following:

A small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book, 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'

What you were inferring was that Barrett decided to go ahead and order what Earl had located because it was effectively blank whilst he simultaneously ignored the fact that it was "dated 1891 throughout".

Personally, I don't think the fact the 1891 diary was blank is a reason to ignore the '1891' printed numerous times on each pair of opened pages, but you evidently think Barrett did whilst seeking a document he could use to create a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper.

Personally, I don't think this makes any sense whatsoever even in Mike Barrett's most irrational (sozzled) periods.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then I must apologise as I read your comment as meaning that Earl had suggested to Barrett that the pages of the 1891 diary were completely blank (i.e., no dates).

Having checked #5,701 of The Greatest Thread of All, I realise that Earl had told Barrett the following:

A small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book, 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'

What you were inferring was that Barrett decided to go ahead and order what Earl had located because it was effectively blank whilst he simultaneously ignored the fact that it was "dated 1891 throughout".

Personally, I don't think the fact the 1891 diary was blank is a reason to ignore the '1891' printed numerous times on each pair of opened pages, but you evidently think Barrett did whilst seeking a document he could use to create a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper.

Personally, I don't think this makes any sense whatsoever even in Mike Barrett's most irrational (sozzled) periods.

No worries, Ike.

I suppose it all depends how Barrett interpreted what he was being told by Earl, how carefully he was listening to every word, and whether he laser-focused in with delight onto the fact that he was being told that nearly all the pages in the diary were blank. He was not, of course, told that '1891' was "printed numerous times on each pair of opened pages".

[Iconoclast]

He was not, of course, told that '1891' was "printed numerous times on each pair of opened pages".

No, obviously that was my phraseology, but he was told, "... dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page" which is not dissimilar.

As you say, he may have been so excited by the phrase 'Nearly all the pages are blank' that he ignored the dating information he had just been told (assuming this was in the order he was told this information) - we'll never know now, I guess.

[Scott Nelson]

The photo album could have existed in Anne's family for years, as she claimed, because it was her father's and was only used as a scrap/picture book. It was only after she got it back from Devereux, was there diary handwriting in it.

Barrett, either unhappy with the way it looked and read, or driven by his own self-ego, sought to create his own version of the spoof in another diary, but it couldn't be used because of the date stamp issue and he couldn't find another substitute in time. Also having to create a new storyline with the self-imposed deadline to bring it to London, Barrett simply turned over what he was originally given by Anne or Tony.