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

[Iconoclast]

No matter what garbage you spout it's obvious that Mike and Anne Barrett wrote the diary and not James Maybrick.

It's always so hard to ever get any insight out of you, John. So, what specifically was the 'garbage' in my post? Which bits would you say were unreasonable of me to post? Given that we can't be certain what happened, what did I say in my post above that was so patently untenable as to deserve being called 'garbage'? I ask, not because I'm offended (believe me, I'm quite hardened to it) but because I and my dear readers are sitting here reading your post and thinking, "Yes, disagree, but show some insight. Have an argument to present to us before you denigrate what was discussed". I don't think you can ever say you ever do that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't speak for L2, but I can speak for me.

If he had cunningly disposed of the physical materials (the pen and ink, basically) via his sister, or was it his mum?, or had he left them all in Tony D's secret (that word again!) illicit drinks stash (i.e., a partition in the gas cupboard)?, and if he'd chucked all of his reference books into the local dump (there were only about three, wasn't it?), then clearly he'd be up against it.

But he could have produced a receipt for the pen and ink and the books (or clarified which library he sourced them from and perhaps his library card record could have been checked), or he could have admitted that he had sought an 1890 diary and ultimately ordered an 1891 one and he could have explained in detail why he did something which is so bemusing that all manner of apologetics have had to be invented to explain it by others much later. And he could have produced the receipt for the srapbook - he had it in his pocket all along in 1999, you see, but then again he told Alan Gray that he had it in his pocket and in the same breath said it was in Tony D's gas cupboard in a house on Fountains Road which did not exist. And he could have given context to his hoax by explaining in detail its little idiosyncrasies, for example, what inspired him to come up with 'mole skin bonnet'? How did he hit upon the 'Gladys is ill again' idea? What was his funny Jewish joke re the GSG? How surprised was he when the researchers found Maybrick did not fall through the cracks of Barrett's hoax?

Given that he was claiming to have come up with everything in the scrapbook, he could have walked us through its pages and convinced us with his intimate knowledge of the reasoning behind every entry and every 'error'. I don't have the facsimile in front of me but - if I did - I'm sure there are many entries which he could have talked us through. Poste House? Why choose a pub with an ambiguous name - why not choose an unambiguous pub that was definitely around in 1888 on the record so it was not problematic? Why say Jack left Kelly's breasts on the table when he later says he thought of leaving them by Kelly's feet (which is what Jack did)? Why use terms which might appear anachronistic ('bumbling buffoon', etc.)?

And - most tellingly of all - why put all this work into creating a hoax only to suddenly decide 'since December 1993' (just months after Harrison's first book was published) that it was morally abhorrent and start a campaign to prove it was a hoax but produce nothing whatsoever that was in any way convincing (especially when he had the receipt for the scrapbook in his pocket all that time)?

This is obviously not a considered post - I'm sitting here drinking an early morning cuppa whilst amusing myself at the pitiful stretching of a master Barrett-Believer - but I think it raises critical points in the Barrett Theory. Why so much erring and why no undeniable, unequivocal, incontrovertible evidence whatsoever from his mouth, his memory, or his pocket?

You seemed to lose focus almost immediately after commencing your list of things that"Barrett could have done to convince you".

How would Barrett explaining that he hit upon the "Gladys is ill" idea by reading in Ryan's book that Gladys had suffered from whooping cough in 1887 have convinced you that he had forged the diary? Wouldn't you have just said that he'd reconstructed this after the event?

How would Barrett coming up with an invented answer about the funny joke or the mole skin bonnet have convinced you in any way? I mean, you're not convinced by his answer as to why he chose to locate a murder in Manchester, nor about what he meant by "no heart, no heart", so why would any answer about either of those subjects you mentioned, or anything else in the diary, have convinced you of anything? You would just have said that Barrett had cleverly fabricated the answers for which no corroboration would have been possible.

You say that Barrett "could have clarified" which library he sourced his books from. Sure, but did anyone ask him? If that was such important issue, why didn't Keith or Caz ask him this question or any of the others that you've suggested he should have been asked during the April 1999 meeting? From what I can tell of the April 1999 meeting, Keith had no interest in asking Keith about the mechanics of the forgery nor did anyone in the audience.

Because that's the problem with your list. Mike wasn't asked these questions.

Truly, the only sensible thing you've said relates to receipts for the pen and ink but the question then arises, why would Mike have kept them? Surely the first and easiest thing to do would have been to destroy all physical receipts relating to the materials purchased for the forgery.

So when you say "he could have produced a receipt for the pen and ink" that is totally dependent on such a receipt, or receipts, still existing, isn't it?

The idea, incidentally, that if Mike had, "admitted that he had sought an 1890 diary and ultimately ordered an 1891 one" you would have been convinced that Barrett had committed the forgery is just ludicrous. It's not even factually correct because he never sought "an 1890 diary" . This comment just seems to be you trying to continue an argument about the 1891 diary, which you've already lost, by other means.

When you say in your final paragraph "This is obviously not a considered post" that is the understatement of the year. All you've done is compile a list of things you'd like to know about how the diary was created. Sure, wouldn't we all. But Roger is right. Nothing will convince you. Your eyes are closed to everything that will actually inform you how the diary was created.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is all about credibility. If Mike had come out with a credible account of his purported actions then we would have little or no discussion needed. We would all look at the evidence and his claims and we'd agree that he appeared to be telling the truth. Unfortunately, for you, there was no credibility about his claims - instead there was nothing short of a long litany of lies, dating failures, and contradictions of claims. First he said one thing, then he said another. And we are to treat his testimony as credible? Incredible, definitely.



Mike should have been able to take us through every page of the scrapbook and give us a commentary on what he was thinking and why he was saying what he was saying and why the handwriting was changing. He should have been able to describe O&L's offices in close detail. He should have been able to take someone there and walk them through his journey that mooted day (March 31, 1992). Maybe someone would even recognise him from that day somehow to add to his credibility? Bizarrely, when he did get outside the building with Alan Gray, the latter declined to go in so we will never know what Barrett would have done had the two of them agreed they'd go in. Bluff or confirmation? We'll never know.

And his identifying the Crashaw quotation was only 'convincing inside information' if you argue that he went up to the attic and pulled out the relevant Sphere volume from his unsold collection, flicked through it, and then chose to misquote the actual line, even though it was right there in front of him, supposedly. From all of his Sphere volumes and any other books he may have had, he chose to make just the one quotation in all 63 pages, and even that was barely in context. Why on earth did he bother given that he hadn't done so before and he didn't do so afterwards - was he up there looking for some linseed oil and suddenly had a brainwave?

The alternative is that - stung by Harrison's comments about his lack of ability - he spent a week in Liverpool Central Library searching through every book of poetry he could find, page after page, until he eventually found what he was looking for. I spent three full days in Scotland's National Library photographing every Celebrity article (around 1,080) I could find. It was boring, but it is doable, so why couldn't Mike have done so too? He didn't even need to work a camera! If he had that Sphere volume in his attic (and we've never had that categorically proven, note), then it could have been a coincidence. Remember coincidences? You know, those things that your lot think happened on March 9, 1992. If you can have one, I'll have one too thank you very much. 'Convincing inside information', my arse. As coincidences go, it's many pages behind the March 9, 1992, 'coincidence' in one of Barrett's other unsold books, Simple: The Barrett Book of Sheer Bloody Good Luck (in Credibility Order).

Credibility is entirely lacking in everything Mike Barrett ever did or said so let's not pretend that Mike "Yes, I'll take that 1891 diary" Barrett had it in spades or even thimblefulls.

There's absolutely no comparison between doing a long, dull, repetitive job of photographing articles in front of you and searching multiple books in a library for an obscure poetry quotation which may not be there at all and you have no way of knowing if it's there or not.

The first is routine, the second is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Barrett was never asked to take anyone through every page of the scrapbook and give commentary on what he was thinking. But what difference would it have made if he had? You'd have dismissed it as invention.

Barrett could have visited O&L's auction house at any time in 1994 and then described it perfectly in 1995. Would that have convinced you? Of course not.

I see by the new nickname you've awarded him of "Mike "Yes, I'll take that 1891 diary" Barrett" that you're still sore about losing the argument after Caz confirmed that an 1891 diary could be used to create an 1888 diary. Try and get over it, Ike, or it will consume you from the inside for ever.

[Lombro2]

First it was “very likely”. Now it’s “obvious”.

Obviously. But Barrett should have picked Bury. What then?

[John Wheat]

It's always so hard to ever get any insight out of you, John. So, what specifically was the 'garbage' in my post? Which bits would you say were unreasonable of me to post? Given that we can't be certain what happened, what did I say in my post above that was so patently untenable as to deserve being called 'garbage'? I ask, not because I'm offended (believe me, I'm quite hardened to it) but because I and my dear readers are sitting here reading your post and thinking, "Yes, disagree, but show some insight. Have an argument to present to us before you denigrate what was discussed". I don't think you can ever say you ever do that.

Why would I bother making long posts for the benefit of the close minded? Those that still believe that Maybrick wrote the diary. I mean I state things but I'm not prepared to write an essay on it. Why would I want to its unlikely to change the minds of those that believe Maybrick wrote the diary inspite of the fact the evidence all points to Mike and Anne Barrett penning it.

[John Wheat]

First it was “very likely”. Now it’s “obvious”.

Obviously. But Barrett should have picked Bury. What then?

As you keep bringing Bury into things. Bury may well have been the Ripper. Maybrick no chance.

[Lombro2]

You MAY be right. I think I see a B!

[Lombro2]

See I’m easy! Just show me a faint impression and I’ll be chasing your relic Sasquatch all through the woods of Whitechapel.

Simple corroboration also works. From people who don’t know each other. Not 3 or more amigos.

[rjpalmer]

Feldman poisoned the well.

There is no 'corroboration.' Just a group of connected people who all have hazy memories of the same unfounded rumor kicked into motion by Feldman promising to make people millionaires.

Many thanks to Caz for reminding us of Feldman's methodology.

There's a particularly interesting anecdote on p. 134-135 of Inside Story that dates to shortly before Feldman and Anne became a team in 1994.

Feldman, in London, gets the contact information from someone at the British Legion club in Liverpool. He doesn't know this person from Adam or Eve, but he thinks they might know how to get hold of Anne. In order to "salt the mine," Feldman tells this stranger that he can "make Anne a millionaire."

When Shirley Harrison learns of this, she is understandably aghast, knowing that Feldman's crude methods and promises of riches have "contaminated" the investigation. "This kind of talk in a community like Liverpool is appalling," she says.

Now flash back to a year earlier.

Feldman's investigation of the electricians starts to make a lot more sense. He was similarly making 'cold' calls to the electricians, seeing what they knew.

How can anyone possibly know that Feldy didn't similarly dangle out the carrot of a promised financial reward?

One of the electricians obviously became a sort of self-appointed amateur detective, calling Feldman back and saying he 'solved his problem'--pinning the alleged caper on a co-worker.

And we hear Eddie Lyons supposedly asking Feldman "what's it worth?"--having also heard of the London video producer with deep pockets and promises of rewards.

He poisoned the well beyond cleaning. None of these people had seen anything. They just recalled the rumors---all traceable back to Feldman's bungling investigation.

Shirley figured it out.

That's how I see it.

[Lombro2]

And we say Mike and Anne poisoned the well and it’s a proven fact but we’re not allowed to use the same excuse you use even though yours is pure speculation.

The point is I’m relatively easy to convince and you can’t convince me because you have less than nothing. You’d be more convincing saying nothing.

[rjpalmer]

It's not "pure speculation." Feldman's methods were obvious to Shirley Harrison, Stewart Evans, and other firsthand observers.

Goody-bye, Lombro. I hope you find your Sasquatch.