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

[rjpalmer]

It's not compulsory to read or respond to them, is it?

Great, I'll just put you on 'ignore' again--this time permanently. It does break up the flow of the thread, but we must all make our little sacrifices.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Didn't one of the handwriting experts--Dr. Audrey Giles or Sue Iremonger--believe that the penman (or penwoman) added extraneous swirls and loops to give the handwriting a mock-Victorian appearance?

If so, then the forger DID make an effort to make the handwriting appear to be 'Maybrick's'---the only way a 'blind forger' could do so, since they had no examples to work with.

Hi Herlock:

From the pen of Richard Whittington-Egan:

"Dr. Giles (former head of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory's Questioned Documents Section) "identified strokes added to the letters 'f,' 'y,' and 'g' in order to give them the large, rounded loops of copperplate."

In brief, Dr. Giles clearly believed the forger was a non-Victorian or non-Edwardian who was attempting to make the writing look like a Victorian's--ie., like Maybrick's---but failed because these loops were not a natural extension of a Victorian's handwriting but added as an afterthought.

There was an attempt, however amateurish, to deceive the readers into thinking the writing was Maybrick's.

--

PS. RWE makes another interesting comment: "[Dr. Giles] agreed with both Robert Smith and Barrett that Maybrick's handwriting could have been influenced by drugs or his emotional state, but said, 'Although drugs, alcohol, and stress can influence the size and proportion of an individual's handwriting, the fine detail and construction will not be altered."

Here we get a rare, fleeting glimpse of Barrett's own explanation as to why the handwriting doesn't match. Was this the excuse he dreamed up in case the handwriting was ever challenged?? It appears so. Another reason, perhaps, why he would have been willing to take the risk.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Herlock:

From the pen of Richard Whittington-Egan:

"Dr. Giles (former head of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory's Questioned Documents Section) "identified strokes added to the letters 'f,' 'y,' and 'g' in order to give them the large, rounded loops of copperplate."

In brief, Dr. Giles clearly believed the forger was a non-Victorian or non-Edwardian who was attempting to make the writing look like a Victorian's--ie., like Maybrick's---but failed because these loops were not a natural extension of a Victorian's handwriting but added as an afterthought.

There was an attempt, however amateurish, to deceive the readers into thinking the writing was Maybrick's.

--

PS. RWH makes another interesting comment: "[Dr. Giles] agreed with both Robert Smith and Barrett that Maybrick's handwriting could have been influenced by drugs or his emotional state, but said, 'Although drugs, alcohol, and stress can influence the size and proportion of an individual's handwriting, the fine detail and construction will not be altered."

Here we get a rare, fleeting glimpse of Barrett's own explanation as to why the handwriting doesn't match. Was this the excuse he dreamed up in case the handwriting was ever challenged?? It appears so. Another reason, perhaps, why he would have been willing to take the risk.

Hi, RJ.

I've never understood the excuse for the handwriting not matching Jim's because of drugs, alcohol or emotional state. I agree, our handwriting can often change in certain ways depending on our mental or emotional states, but the manner in which we actually form those letters and apply pressure, etc, the bread and butter of our penmanship, wouldn't change at all.

[caz]

So, if you don't mind saying, what are your current views about the diary referring to an 'FM' on the wall?

Like the FM, my views are imperfectly formed, so I can reach no conclusions regarding what the diary's author was referring to, which is presumably what matters.

I don't know how much this differs from views I expressed whenever the subject came up in the past, but I'm not sure why Palmer is so obsessed with making comparisons.

Why is it unreasonable for me to assume that your frequently expressed views over a period of many years haven't changed?

Because I'm here. All Palmer needed to do was ask, and now he has. How hard can it be? In future, I would prefer it if he did not presume to know and repeat my views based on old news, but waited to see if I have anything new to say about it now. For someone who disagrees profoundly with nearly every word I write, why is he so fixated on my views that when I don't comment for five minutes he delves into the archives to revisit what they once were, not considering for a moment that my thinking might actually be - shock, horror - flexible.

I think this may be the crux of the problem for Palmer. What does he see as the point of a forum like this, where we discuss topics with each other, taking on board anything we learn along the way, so we can explore and assess our own and one another's reasoning? Does he think a healthy mind is one that is so inflexible and stagnant that it can't form any new ideas of its own and is equally resistant to considering anyone else's? Luckily for me and anyone reading my posts, I am not doomed to regurgitate the same thinking I had from day one, to the last syllable of my recorded time here, and I don't know why that would be considered remotely normal or desirable. Yet Palmer thinks it's perfectly reasonable for him to assume that my former views on any of the myriad aspects of this saga won't have changed one iota, regardless of what I have read and learnt between then and now. If the human brain was wired that way, we wouldn't have evolved and survived as long as we have.

Can you point out where the diarist mentions the wall at all? Why does the diarist write 'the whores initial' (singular) is he is referring to two initials?

Palmer doesn't really want my views on this. He knows what's in the diary well enough, and if he really wanted to know why 'the whores initial' is in there, and believes the only living person with the answer is Anne Graham, then he's not asking the right person.

For a start, I would never have come up with such a horrible expression in the first place, and I don't just mean the lack of an apostrophe. I don't know of many women in the wake of the Yorkshire Ripper murders who would have been entirely comfortable peppering a piece of fiction or a horrible hoax with that particular pejorative term for Jack's victims and his own wife. It might have been more productive to concentrate on making the handwriting look right for the swine who is supposed to have been obsessed with the w word.

What does he mean by 'in front for all eyes to see'? Isn't that a strange way to refer to a clue on a wall behind Kelly? Isn't it equally strange to refer to 'an initial here and a (sic) initial there' when describing two initials side-by-side?

I refer Palmer to my previous response and remind him that I'm not psychic. And unless Anne is now identifying as a man - which she is perfectly entitled to do, and in some ways who could blame her? - I don't know why Palmer is asking what 'he' means by the diary's words. Last time I checked, I was also a 'she' [and Palmer can safely assume on this occasion that I have no immediate plans to change my mind], but I would still be no more qualified to improve on anyone else's interpretations.

Why does the diarist refer, in the same passage, to carving on flesh if he's referring to writing on a wall?

Should Palmer not be addressing this to someone else? I can only think that Anne Graham wasn't thinking clearly at that point, and imagined that a man might just be capable of multitasking in November 1888, whether it was carving on a victim's flesh, writing on a wall or leaving various parts of a body in places they had no business being.

Can someone seriously believe that Maybrick would write "the fools will never find it" if he's written his wife's initials in blood several inches high?

Funnily enough, 'the fools' never did find it, whatever 'it' is meant to be, but does Palmer not think James Maybrick would have had more pressing things to do in any case, like more visits to the physicians and apothecaries of Liverpool, due to the severe headaches he had been suffering from since August? I very much doubt he'd have thought a cure could be found, rummaging around in Kelly's innards, but one never knows with a hypochondriac who may be easily persuaded by improbable remedies. If anyone in the 21st century can be talked into injecting themselves with disinfectant to treat covid, where do we set the limits?

I think what people are wondering is how Ike can sustain the idea that the diary "predicted" the FM that Feldman thinks he found on the wall, when the diary not only doesn't mention it, but seems to be describing something else entirely.

And? When did I become a spokesperson for Ike's ideas, or anyone else's?

If I don't care for Palmer's unfortunate habit of speaking for others, I'm hardly going to adopt it as a strategy. It ain't happening, and I'm not as easily manipulated as Palmer fancies Anne Graham was, when married to Mike Barrett.

[caz]

Hi, RJ.

I've never understood the excuse for the handwriting not matching Jim's because of drugs, alcohol or emotional state. I agree, our handwriting can often change in certain ways depending on our mental or emotional states, but the manner in which we actually form those letters and apply pressure, etc, the bread and butter of our penmanship, wouldn't change at all.

This is why it's hard to imagine how we would still be here, Mike, if it's Anne Graham's handwriting in the diary. How well could Mike have expected her to disguise it, and would the Barretts not have anticipated that their own handwriting would be scrutinised to hell and back, if they knew full well it didn't resemble Maybrick's? If Melvin Harris had suspected the handwriting was Anne's, it's highly unlikely that he'd have let matters rest without moving heaven and earth to get his suspicions confirmed, kill the diary stone dead and take all the glory. It would have been - as they say - out of character, unless he didn't believe this was a way to skin the cat.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

This is why it's hard to imagine how we would still be here, Mike, if it's Anne Graham's handwriting in the diary. How well could Mike have expected her to disguise it, and would the Barretts not have anticipated that their own handwriting would be scrutinised to hell and back, if they knew full well it didn't resemble Maybrick's? If Melvin Harris had suspected the handwriting was Anne's, it's highly unlikely that he'd have let matters rest without moving heaven and earth to get his suspicions confirmed, kill the diary stone dead and take all the glory. It would have been - as they say - out of character, unless he didn't believe this was a way to skin the cat.

Love,

Caz
X

I do agree, Caz, I'm not convinced either of them penned it, although that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't think they're involved in some way.

I'd love to know who Chris Jones had in mind for his local nest of forgers.

[caz]

Hello Caz,

As you have probably guessed I’ve always assumed that diary was forged by Mike with help from Anne (and maybe someone else) but I certainly have no fixed ideas on the subject (and I certainly don’t know anything close to enough about the details to get into the discussions that are had on here between yourself, Ike, Roger, Ero, and with David O commenting from elsewhere, on electricians and affidavits and suchlike). As Mike brought the Diary ‘into the light’ then it seems likely to me that he knew that he was at least perpetuating a hoax but to what extent he was involved in the actual creation, I don’t know, but you are right that I make the assumption of financial gain as a motive.

Who would have suspected though Caz, back in 1992 when we were all excited about the possibility of it being the ripper’s diary, that it would still be the subject of such vigorous debate 33 years later?

Afternoon Herlock,

The above, which I have emphasised in bold, is something that I'm afraid I can't agree with. The very fact that Mike brought the diary 'into the light', and immediately invited the experts to examine it, makes me highly sceptical that he'd have done this knowing he was 'perpetuating a hoax', especially if his wife had only just finished dotting the i's and crossing the t's - which appears to be the only working Barrett theory these days.

For me, it's counterintuitive, and I'd have thought the Barretts would have paid at least a tiny bit more attention to the Hitler Diaries fiasco from ten years previously, and the respective roles played by Kujau and Heidemann, to see how to improve on their own chances of getting away with Jack the Ripper's diary while learning from all the mistakes that led to Kujau's downfall. It was revealed that Kujau had been a prolific faker before he was finally exposed and jailed, and he took great pains to mimic Hitler's handwriting, so even his extensive knowledge, skill and experience let him down in the end.

Moving on a decade to Mike Barrett in 1992, who had no known aptitude for the art of faking more than a sick note from his mother, or how to go about handling and placing a recently faked document, I do wonder how anyone could see this chancer following in someone like Kujau's footsteps, not expecting the diary to be exposed, sooner or later, as his own wife's recent handiwork - if this had been the case - and them both to be prosecuted for fraud if money had already been paid into their bank account by then. It would be even more of a miracle for the diary to still be debated today in those circumstances. All the unconvincing excuses I've heard, about greedy or gullible publishing people with short memories, who wouldn't have flinched if the diary had been written in biro, and Mike Barrett correctly 'predicting' this would be the case, despite knowing Jack sh.. about the London publishing game, won't wash.

Back in 1992, I knew nothing about a diary emerging in Liverpool, so you might have been 'all excited' about the possibility of it being Jack the Ripper's, but I only learned about its existence in 1998, when I saw Feldman's book in the London Dungeon shop, and my first thought was how the hell it was still being written about six years later. I could not believe it would have taken that long to prove it a hoax, like the letters written by hundreds of Jacks back in 1888, and the Yorkshire Ripper tape in the 1970s.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I do agree, Caz, I'm not convinced either of them penned it, although that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't think they're involved in some way.

I'd love to know who Chris Jones had in mind for his local nest of forgers.

Absolutely, Mike. I can tell you that Chris has not even hinted to me in our private correspondence who he has in mind, and I'm not even sure if he has got that far himself!

Clearly, Mike Barrett involved himself, and I strongly suspect he dragged Anne into it against her will, but that doesn't mean either of them ever knew who wrote the diary.

For what it's worth, Anne has said that if she had done so, she would never have referred to 'the Poste House' without looking into the history of the tiny watering hole in Cumberland Street which goes by that name. You are in a better position than I to have an opinion on that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mike J. G.]

I remember the whole diary story basically as it was breaking, as I remember the news cameras down Riversdale road, and my dad taking me to Jack the Ripper's house on Halloween. I've loved the story ever since.

When it comes to us still talking about it, well there's not very many of us, to be fair, and one Maybrick based discussion on here did nosedive into a debate about Sasquatch, so that'll tell you something!

There's honestly not a great deal to talk about in the world of Ripperdom, beyond the incredibly niche conversations about PC's beats and lampposts and Lechmere. We're still discussing the DNA and the shawl, for instance...

The thing we can't get away from with Mike Barrett, though, is that he most definitely introduced us to that scrapbook, whether we like it or not. Only he knows where he got it.

[Mike J. G.]

Absolutely, Mike. I can tell you that Chris has not even hinted to me in our private correspondence who he has in mind, and I'm not even sure if he has got that far himself!

Clearly, Mike Barrett involved himself, and I strongly suspect he dragged Anne into it against her will, but that doesn't mean either of them ever knew who wrote the diary.

For what it's worth, Anne has said that if she had done so, she would never have referred to 'the Poste House' without looking into the history of the tiny watering hole in Cumberland Street which goes by that name. You are in a better position than I to have an opinion on that.

Love,

Caz
X

I dunno, Caz, that could also be seen as Anne acknowledging a blunder with, and deflecting, the issue of the Poste house, but we'll never know. I certainly think that it's a blunder, and I do feel that the author definitely meant that pub and wrongly assumed that because it was so old that it had always gone by that name, as I don't think many people in Liverpool knew it was once called the Muck Midden, so it would be a very easy mistake to make.

Anne is the only person who could tell us exactly where Mike got that diary, but I doubt that she ever will.

I hope Chris does have a theory, and he's not just being a tease, but I guess that's information he's probably saving for another book down the road!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon Herlock,

The above, which I have emphasised in bold, is something that I'm afraid I can't agree with. The very fact that Mike brought the diary 'into the light', and immediately invited the experts to examine it, makes me highly sceptical that he'd have done this knowing he was 'perpetuating a hoax', especially if his wife had only just finished dotting the i's and crossing the t's - which appears to be the only working Barrett theory these days.

For me, it's counterintuitive, and I'd have thought the Barretts would have paid at least a tiny bit more attention to the Hitler Diaries fiasco from ten years previously, and the respective roles played by Kujau and Heidemann, to see how to improve on their own chances of getting away with Jack the Ripper's diary while learning from all the mistakes that led to Kujau's downfall. It was revealed that Kujau had been a prolific faker before he was finally exposed and jailed, and he took great pains to mimic Hitler's handwriting, so even his extensive knowledge, skill and experience let him down in the end.

Moving on a decade to Mike Barrett in 1992, who had no known aptitude for the art of faking more than a sick note from his mother, or how to go about handling and placing a recently faked document, I do wonder how anyone could see this chancer following in someone like Kujau's footsteps, not expecting the diary to be exposed, sooner or later, as his own wife's recent handiwork - if this had been the case - and them both to be prosecuted for fraud if money had already been paid into their bank account by then. It would be even more of a miracle for the diary to still be debated today in those circumstances. All the unconvincing excuses I've heard, about greedy or gullible publishing people with short memories, who wouldn't have flinched if the diary had been written in biro, and Mike Barrett correctly 'predicting' this would be the case, despite knowing Jack sh.. about the London publishing game, won't wash.

Back in 1992, I knew nothing about a diary emerging in Liverpool, so you might have been 'all excited' about the possibility of it being Jack the Ripper's, but I only learned about its existence in 1998, when I saw Feldman's book in the London Dungeon shop, and my first thought was how the hell it was still being written about six years later. I could not believe it would have taken that long to prove it a hoax, like the letters written by hundreds of Jacks back in 1888, and the Yorkshire Ripper tape in the 1970s.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

But the evidence is overwhelming that the dairy is a late twentieth century forgery, so how for the love of all that is pure and holy did such an item get into Mike Barrett's grubby hands?

You say he had no known aptitude for the art of faking but wasn't he nevertheless a journalist during the 1980s? Didn't he later write similar pages to those in the diary which Ike posted on here a while back, showing he had the ability to write fiction? Didn't he potentially have his more educated wife to help him? And didn't he advertise for a genuine blank diary from the decade of the Ripper sometime in early 1992?

If he was the forger, or one of them, he could be said to have gotten away with it, couldn't he? He certainly made money from it. So perhaps he wasn't quite as dumb as he might have appeared?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock:

From the pen of Richard Whittington-Egan:

"Dr. Giles (former head of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory's Questioned Documents Section) "identified strokes added to the letters 'f,' 'y,' and 'g' in order to give them the large, rounded loops of copperplate."

In brief, Dr. Giles clearly believed the forger was a non-Victorian or non-Edwardian who was attempting to make the writing look like a Victorian's--ie., like Maybrick's---but failed because these loops were not a natural extension of a Victorian's handwriting but added as an afterthought.

There was an attempt, however amateurish, to deceive the readers into thinking the writing was Maybrick's.

--

PS. RWE makes another interesting comment: "[Dr. Giles] agreed with both Robert Smith and Barrett that Maybrick's handwriting could have been influenced by drugs or his emotional state, but said, 'Although drugs, alcohol, and stress can influence the size and proportion of an individual's handwriting, the fine detail and construction will not be altered."

Here we get a rare, fleeting glimpse of Barrett's own explanation as to why the handwriting doesn't match. Was this the excuse he dreamed up in case the handwriting was ever challenged?? It appears so. Another reason, perhaps, why he would have been willing to take the risk.

Hi Roger,

Yes it was clear that the suggestion had originated with Smith or Barrett or the two combined so perhaps this was a case of planting the seed, or of at least checking to see if their potential explanation for the handwriting had any traction.

[caz]

If newspapers were reporting writing being on the wall, it's odd that nobody bothered to document them, despite their excitement, seeing as it was worthy enough to be picked up by a journalist after the fact.

As I suggested, Mike, this was almost certainly speculation, as early as 10th November 1888, that the photographer had been sent for by the police in case the killer had written anything on the wall on this occasion. There is nothing to confirm this, and nothing to confirm they were even looking for clues of this kind. But if we knew that the photographer was sent for by someone who believed the killer had chalked the message on the wall in Goulston Street, that might have given us a clue that they were hoping to find a clue and take a snap before the room was cleaned.

The diary author says barely anything about an FM on Kelly's wall, regardless, so it's yet another avenue that doesn't really lead us anywhere.

More than that, the diary author says nothing at all about the wall, or anything about leaving FM on it.

Everyone is either looking for clues; believes they've found clues; looks but sees no clues; or doesn't think it's worth looking for any.

I can't find it in my heart to blame any of them for their personal approach.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

But the evidence is overwhelming that the dairy is a late twentieth century forgery, so how for the love of all that is pure and holy did such an item get into Mike Barrett's grubby hands?

You say he had no known aptitude for the art of faking but wasn't he nevertheless a journalist during the 1980s? Didn't he later write similar pages to those in the diary which Ike posted on here a while back, showing he had the ability to write fiction? Didn't he potentially have his more educated wife to help him? And didn't he advertise for a genuine blank diary from the decade of the Ripper sometime in early 1992?

Hi Herlock,

I don't want to drag you into my longstanding argument with Caroline Brown, and I've put her on 'ignore' to keep the peace moving forward (and I hope she has reciprocated) but since you quoted her, I was able to see her post, and I really do feel the need to respond to her remarkable attempt at rewriting history:

"The very fact that Mike brought the diary 'into the light', and immediately invited the experts to examine it, makes me highly sceptical that he'd have done this knowing he was 'perpetuating a hoax', especially if his wife had only just finished dotting the i's and crossing the t's - which appears to be the only working Barrett theory these days."

Hold the phone, here. Who are these experts Mike invited to examine the diary? What are their names and qualifications? Doreen Montgomery, a literary agent, was a forensic document examiner?

Does the above description bear any resemblance to what actually took place?

We currently have two examples of men who, in all probability, acquired hoaxes created by someone else. No one believes they are the hoaxers.

Tim Atkinson bought the 'Tilly' letter on eBay. What did he do with it? Mr. Atkinson invited experts (or at least people he believed to be experts) to examine the letter, including a scientist at Liverpool John Moore University who made an analysis.

Barrett, by contrast, did nothing of the kind.

Similarly, some years ago Russell Edwards obtained the dubious 'Eddowes' shawl and consulted various experts, including an expert on silk dying and Dr. Jari Louhelainen, a scientist at the same Liverpool university. Only then did Edwards publish his book.

Again, Barrett didn't do anything even remotely similar.

Rather than 'immediately inviting the experts to examine' the diary, Barrett called up a literary agent in London with the obvious intention of getting the diary published as well as to tell his story of how it has affected his life. According to Maurice Chittenden, Barrett had previously contacted various publishers. Not forensic experts--publishers.

There is not a jot of evidence that Barrett ever submitted the diary to any forensic examinations at all. It was Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison who consulted Dr. David Baxendale after they decided to move forward with publication.

Indeed, Barrett later complained that he was a greenhorn about such things and also pissed and moaned bitterly that he was charged for his share for various forensic tests. Unlike Atkinson or Edwards, Barrett hadn't even taken the diary to an auction house to get a non-expert opinion.

My apology for the interruption, but one really ought to stick to the facts. I guess I'll just have to stop reading altogether.

Ciao.

P.S. I also think the insinuation that Barrett wasn't a risk taker is a deeply misguided one--if that is indeed what is being insinuated. Isn't this the same Mike Barrett who mugged an old lady in broad daylight and was almost immediately captured? And the mastermind behind the 'Loot' magazine scam. If I didn't know it was John, I'd think Barrett's middle-name was Audacious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I don't want to drag you into my longstanding argument with Caroline Brown, and I've put her on 'ignore' to keep the peace moving forward (and I hope she has reciprocated) but since you quoted her, I was able to see her post, and I really do feel the need to respond to her remarkable attempt at rewriting history:

"The very fact that Mike brought the diary 'into the light', and immediately invited the experts to examine it, makes me highly sceptical that he'd have done this knowing he was 'perpetuating a hoax', especially if his wife had only just finished dotting the i's and crossing the t's - which appears to be the only working Barrett theory these days."

Hold the phone, here. Who are these experts Mike invited to examine the diary? What are their names and qualifications? Doreen Montgomery, a literary agent, was a forensic document examiner?

Does the above description bear any resemblance to what actually took place?

We currently have two examples of men who, in all probability, acquired hoaxes created by someone else. No one believes they are the hoaxers.

Tim Atkinson bought the 'Tilly' letter on eBay. What did he do with it? Mr. Atkinson invited experts (or at least people he believed to be experts) to examine the letter, including a scientist at Liverpool John Moore University who made an analysis.

Barrett, by contrast, did nothing of the kind.

Similarly, some years ago Russell Edwards obtained the dubious 'Eddowes' shawl and consulted various experts, including an expert on silk dying and Dr. Jari Louhelainen, a scientist at the same Liverpool university. Only then did Edwards publish his book.

Again, Barrett didn't do anything even remotely similar.

Rather than 'immediately inviting the experts to examine' the diary, Barrett called up a literary agent in London with the obvious intention of getting the diary published as well as to tell his story of how it has affected his life. According to Maurice Chittenden, Barrett had previously contacted various publishers. Not forensic experts--publishers.

There is not a jot of evidence that Barrett ever submitted the diary to any forensic examinations at all. It was Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison who consulted Dr. David Baxendale after they decided to move forward with publication.

Indeed, Barrett later complained that he was a greenhorn about such things and also pissed and moaned bitterly that he was charged for his share for various forensic tests. Unlike Atkinson or Edwards, Barrett hadn't even taken the diary to an auction house to get a non-expert opinion.

My apology for the interruption, but one really ought to stick to the facts. I guess I'll just have to stop reading altogether.

Ciao.

P.S. I also think the insinuation that Barrett wasn't a risk taker is a deeply misguided one--if that is indeed what is being insinuated. Isn't this the same Mike Barrett who mugged an old lady in broad daylight and was almost immediately captured? And the mastermind behind the 'Loot' magazine scam. If I didn't know it was John, I'd think Barrett's middle-name was Audacious.

Hi Roger,

I can't really see why the fact that Mike brought the diary 'into the light' is, for one second, a reason to discount him as having been involved in the forgery. Even if he had invited experts to examine it, I would have thought that any forger worth his or her salt would have wanted it looked at and authenticated as soon as possible. I don't know the mind of a forger but I assume they're proud of their work and think it will pass muster. This diary was on correct paper for the period and obviously used ink that couldn't easily be said to be modern. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if an expert looks at a forged document one day after it's been forged or one year afterwards, or at least it didn't in 1992. There obviously weren't any reliable tools to enable them to differentiate between the two, other than perhaps a solubility test but not everyone seems to accept the result of the one that Baxendale did. So I'm not terribly impressed by the fact that the forger might only have just finished writing it before producing it. I suspect that's true of all or most forgers. They want to make their money as fast as they can.