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

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I have absolutely no idea whether a Seth Linder would have been scrupulously accurate. The problem is that the tapes I've listened to are of very poor quality which makes interpreting them very difficult. Unless Seth Linder was in possession of much better copies or had much better hearing than I do, he must surely have been capable of making a mistake. For all I know, he wrote a note to himself wondering if the transcript had been written "fifty fifty" and then later confused himself into thinking Barrett had said this on the tape. I really don't know but I've already provided a possible interpretation for the "fifty fifty" comment whereby Barrett was saying that he and his wife were fifty-fifty responsible for the entire diary, not just the writing of the manuscript. That would be consistent with everything else he said.

I've continued on to listen to the recording on November 6, 1994 and I believe I can hear at 40:24 Gray asking "Have you got samples of your handwriting that you can give me?" to which Barrett replies "Anne wrote it". Then on the next tape, marked as November 8 1994 but which appears to have been recorded on November 7, 1994, I think I can hear at about the half an hour mark Barrett saying, "Anne actually wrote the manuscript" and "Anne wrote the f*cking diary".

So Barrett seems consistent time after time - on every single tape between 4th and 7th November in fact - in saying that Anne wrote the manuscript and I can't see him seriously having said to Gray that he wrote half of it.

There is no doubt that the recordings that we have (which are on Casebook) are very poor quality and that is somewhat unfortunate. I genuinely suspect that Seth must have had access to cleaner, original copies because the November 6, 1994, recording (which I had misdated in my database as November 7) is hard work to labour through. That said, I can at least inform you that Mike's 'it was fifty-fifty' comment comes on that tape at 19:55 (many thanks to a friend who spotted it). Now, the conversation before it and the conversation after it is undoubtedly not an easy listen. I have tried changing the playback speeds but I need to do more work to be more certain of the actual conversations. Seth seemed very confident so he must have had a cleaner recording which - to date - I don't have the good fortune to have.

Hope this helps.

Ike

[Lombro2]

That's the joy of being a diary supporter, Markus. Don't actually check Barrett's story until it's too late, and then shout, "see, no proof!!"

I don't know what kind of sports you play in your neck of the woods but, where I am, the team that scores the most points, and has the most wins, wins, NOT the team that has the most ties. It's also NOT the one who has the most excuses as in a player being too drunk and injured and "the scorekeeper was out to lunch". And it's definitely NOT the team that keeps saying, "I need another video review; Check the tapes". And "Time ran out! It's not my fault!"

How much injury time do you need? No injury time in this game. Sorry.

[Lombro2]

I would sing my heart out but Mike McGear would slice my throat and rip it out.

[Lombro2]

Thank you very much for the Aintree Iron. Second biggest hit?

Lily the Pink was the only pop song my Dad ever liked. He didn't thank me very very much for playing Little Red Rooster or Hey Joe at full blast.

I don't think Florie Maybrick would have liked the Scaffold very much.

I wonder if Roger McGough would be the equivalent of Fred Weatherly, Michael Maybrick's partner in rhyme, whose works featured in the Christmas Day 1884 edition of The Times, with none other than our dear old friend Richard Crashaw putting in an appearance in the adjacent column. [Thank you very much, Rob Clack, for sending me the particulars many moons ago.]

You really couldn't make it up - so it's fortunate that I didn't, as Clacky is my witness.

Love,

Caz
X

So, Caz, if you were entertaining Paul McCartney’s brother, might you not want to sing for him for a hour like Mary did with her guest?

[Lombro2]

"Happy Hunting!"

Happy Peripherology.

[John Wheat]

The Barretts wrote the diary.

[rjpalmer]

Maybe the 'Skip Story' is true

Why not?

Every dumpster fire needs a dumpster.

[Lombro2]

No, the Skip Story came from Eddy in 1993. He told Robert Smith he threw a book in a skip in June of 1992. That's according to Robert Smith.

Maybe Eddy did do that in June and, if that makes it true, then it's true. But it's not the Diary.

So why is Eddy talking about a different book in a different month thrown in a real skip, or talking about a phantom book in a different month thrown in a phantom skip.

It's called muddying the water or "scrambling history", if you will, so no one will know that he stole a Diary and a Gold Watch from Battlecrease.

[Scott Nelson]

Maybe the 'Skip Story' is true, only it happened in, say the 1970s. The skip was then hauled back to the P&R maintenance yard, and someone spots a book therein and fishes it out...the rest is scrambled history and cover-up. No?

[Lombro2]

The Skip Story and the Liverpool U Examination Story came from the electricians. I don't see how either story doesn't help the Battlecrease Heist story.

Why would the electricians lie about a forgery done by Barrett?

I know! They were "egged on" by Feldy to give him stories that don't help him, but would help them.

Otherwise, someone might think they stole something valuable right out of a house and not piece of trash in a skip, and they didn't go to have it assessed as being of value before giving it away. They did their due diligence with some artifact or they didn't. It certainly wasn't the Diary they did their due diligence with but it was made to look that way.

[Lombro2]

A great serial killer usually has good geo-spatial awareness and operates instinctively. He wouldn’t stop to think about it or analyze it.

So the author either is one or he knows that.

[Patrick Differ]

Why did Maybrick or whoever wrote this diary choose to say he took a room on Middlesex Street in the heart of the Jewish community?
There could be three reasons.
1. He actually did but does not say whether it was in Metro or City jurisdiction.
2. He knew it would possibly tie to his whereabouts between Mitre Square and Goulston Street.
3. He would be the man seen on Middlesex Street per George Hutchinsons testimony.

If he wanted to take ownership as the Ripper you might expect him to tie where he lived to these three events in writing?
1. I took a room on Middlesex Street..in the City side of Middlesex but murdered in Metro because I knew the Metro Boys would predictably stop at their jurisdiction.
2. ( the same as 1 basically ) It was a simple matter of disposing the organs and then the apron and blame the Jews.
I picked a place to live that was in easy walking distance of my own safety.
3. I would blend easily on Middlesex and the Sunday market. I saw the man that saw me with Kelly. He must be looking for me.

But there was nothing I found in the writings to tie in his lair at Middlesex Street. I may have missed it.

The only potential suspect that fits this scenario is Jacob Levy who lived at #36 Middlesex Street in City jurisdiction.

[rjpalmer]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.

I have a strong sense that my comment sailed over the top of your head.

Shirley Harrison, to her credit, DID try to confirm whether Barrett had bought the photo album at the auction house as claimed in his secret, non-circulating affidavit. This is not my 'theory' it's what Barrett confessed as having happened and any competent researcher would attempt to verify it.

Unfortunately, Shriley had the auctioneers check the wrong dates, because Alan Gray had wrongly dated these events to 1990/91 based on his conversations with Barrett.

That might sound fine & dandy to you, but it is obvious from the affidavit that Barrett had gone to the auction after he received the 'red diary' in the mail and realized that it was too small & useless. That's the chronology he describes.

This gives us a hard date to work with--March 1992--because that's when Barrett had ordered/purchased the red diary as documented evidence proves.

And those dates--in March 1992--were never checked by the auction house. By the time the error in logic was noticed--after 2000 or so---O & L auctions had pulped all their records. There is also some doubt whether the lot would have been even adequately recorded for a small batch of miscellaneous items.

This has been gone over many times.

The bad news for you is that Barrett's auction ticket is just as substantial and real as Ed Lyons' timesheet for the week of 8 March 1992.

You can't show Lyons even knew Barrett and he plausibly denies it. You can't show Lyons found anything at Dodd's house. You can't show he was even working that week, having been laid off the week before. You sure as heck can't show he sold the Diary of Jack the Ripper for ten pounds or whatever other figure you want to imagine.

Ed Lyons' timecard is just as much of a phantom as Barrett's auction ticket.

Happy Hunting.

[Mike J. G.]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.

No, you're right, it was found beneath the floorboards in Riversdale, despite the fact that this has been shown to be incredibly unlikely by Chris Jones, chucked into a nonexistent skip outside and taken to a random branch of Liverpool John Moore's for verification from an unknown professor who has never stepped forward.

[Lombro2]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.