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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

yes-- there is no reason to think that Barrett (who was apparently considered a 'mental vegetable' by the early diary researchers) would know that examples of Maybrick's handwriting still existed, so it's a non-argument.

Maybrick had been dead for over 100 years by 1992 when pen went to paper, but once an exemplar was discovered, Barrett put into play the 'drug addict' explanation---not that arsenic is an actual psychotropic; it's just a stimulant, but it was apparently good enough for Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison, Colin Wilson, and others. If they couldn't quite stomach that maybricksplanation, they could always fall back on the will being a forgery instead of the diary!! As Donald Rumbelow once pointed out, the researchers were quite willing to do the hoaxer's work for him...

Further, unless the diary's supporters were camped out in Goldie Street in 1991/2 (which, despite what they like to insinuate is unlikely) they have no idea what inquiries Anne or Mike might have made. It's the usual non-argument smokescreen based on no information, and it smells of desperation.

For about the tenth time, let me quote something that Melvin Harris revealed about Paul Feldman's investigation into the handwriting.

The Maybrick Will -- The Crucial Key to a Shabby Hoax
Melvin Harris

I first saw the 'Maybrick Diary' long after 'the experts and advisors' had had their say. But before seeing it I made three predictions; it would be written in a simple iron-gall ink, which could not be dated; it would be written in an old journal with its front pages torn out; the handwriting would not match the known handwriting of James Maybrick. With time all three forecasts proved correct, but when first shown this document I was assured by Paul Feldman that no significant examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed. There was just one signature on his marriage lines, but nothing else:--"We have checked."

"We have checked." That needs repeating.


Question: If Paul Feldman's team--which included professional researchers such has Keith Skinner and Paul Begg, etc.--couldn't find any 'significant' example of Maybrick's handwriting to compare to the hoax, why couldn't a far less sophisticated man like Mike Barrett have made his own simple inquiries and drawn the same conclusion?

Obviously, despite all the bluff and bluster, he could have.

I've always seen it as a bizarre and desperate argument. Pointing out the handwriting doesn't even match is like saying, "the forgery is so bad it must not be a forgery! No one would risk it."

If criminals and hoaxers weren't willing to take risks, there would be no crime and no hoaxes.

One could point out the nylon threads in the Hitler Diaries and say, "well it must have been a spoof. Any forger worth his salt would have gotten paper from the 1940s."

Such a bizarre argument would hardly have stopped Konrad Kajau from going to prison.

The argument is bonkers. I put utterly no stock in it.

Cheers.

P.S. Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear about Mike "immediately" submitting the diary to forensic tests. I've been following the diary debacle for 20 years and this is the first I've heard of such tests. It will be fascinating to learn about them.

I tend to agree with you Roger. For all we know, the forger was entirely satisfied that no examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed and was surprised to discover later that this wasn't the case. I just can't see how the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's can possibly be used to support an argument that the diary isn't a forgery. It's an bit Alice in Wonderland, I feel.

[rjpalmer]

...in case the handwriting was ever challenged??

Was this a serious question?

Ten years after the Hitler Diaries were sold to a West German news magazine, Mike Barrett sells his wife's fake ripper diary to a book publisher, but has some excuse ready in case the handwriting is ever challenged?

Dang. I accidently read the message boards without logging-in and came across this post.

I thought the concept was fairly simple, but to make sure I ran it past my friend's ten-year-old daughter. Yup--she understood it right away.

What does it take, children, to challenge handwriting? Any guesses?

Yup, exemplars---significant samples of the person's handwriting.

So, if the hoaxer was convinced that Maybrick had been dead long enough that no significant samples existed (as was apparently the belief of Paul Feldman's team), and even made whatever unknowable inquires that convinced them of this, then how could the handwriting be challenged? What was Dr. Audrey Giles going to compare it against, tea leaves?

Of course, the hoaxer might have worried that samples of Maybrick's handwriting might eventually be traced, and IF that happened, gave some thought to 'Plan B' --hoping that Mabrick's history of drug use would be a suitable explanation. The diary's text is certainly filled with erratic writing, references to drugs, a big SIR JIMMAY in letters three inches, high, etc.

And lo and behold, when the Diary's handwriting was examined by Dr. Audrey Giles, as previously noted, what did Mike Barrett ask? He asked if Maybrick's drug use could have altered his handwriting.

I thought that was a fairly simple concept. My apologies if some were confused.

Was the hoaxer clever enough to have thought this out in advance? As some commentators around here like to say, "only Anne knows."

Ciao.

[Lombro2]

Everyone seems to forget that, in the story, James Maybrick also took the Diary to London. Presumably he also left it in his room at the lodging house while he was out.

So it makes sense he wouldn’t leave out a confession with names and dates, and written in his own, nice, and legible hand.

I’m not sure which scenario is more risky—Maybrick going to London with a confession in his own handwriting or Michael Barrett going to London with a Maybrick Diary not in Maybrick’s hand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone seems to forget that, in the story, James Maybrick also took the Diary to London. Presumably he also left it in his room at the lodging house while he was out.

So it makes sense he wouldn’t leave out a confession with names and dates, and written in his own, nice, and legible hand.

I’m not sure which scenario is more risky—Maybrick going to London with a confession in his own handwriting or Michael Barrett going to London with a Maybrick Diary not in Maybrick’s hand.

Hi Lombro,

If it "makes sense" to you that Maybrick wouldn't have written the diary in his own nice legible hand might it not also have made sense to the forger who, after all, was responsible for the Maybrick character bringing his diary to London in the story?

[caz]

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!

Hi Mike,

Yes, I knew it could be viewed as Anne learning that she'd made a beginner's boo-boo by settling, of all places for 'Sir Jim' to have taken refreshment, on the tiny Poste House. When I think of how many pubs, inns and taverns she would have had to pick from, which existed in Liverpool in 1888, I have to wonder what would have made her finally decide that the Poste House would do. It's also one of the oldest gay friendly pubs in the City! If Anne was making a lazy assumption, or didn't think it important enough for a bit of rudimentary research, she could have just put 'the post house' or even 'the tavern' and - as with the bloody initials - leave any inferences to the reader. Remember, this is the same person who went on to research the Maybrick case in depth for her book on Florence.

I don't think Chris Jones would think of himself as a tease, but what choice would he have if he hasn't found the evidence to support his theory about a group of forgers based in Liverpool - assuming he is still thinking along those lines?

I think it's useful to remember that for the Barretts to have taken an active role in the diary's creation, there is only the one working hypothesis to consider, and this demands that the physical diary has to have been prepared and penned by Mike and Anne, between 1st and 12th April 1992.

Anyone with any reason to doubt this very specific scenario, or would allow for the diary to have been written before 9th March 1992, when Mike made his first known contact with the publishing world over the phone, may as well forget the Barretts as 'blind forgers', and look elsewhere. Back in the day, there used to be theorists who considered that Tony Devereux and the witness to his Will, citizen Kane, made more plausible forgery suspects, but I don't know if they even feature today in Chris's thinking.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Just wondering, Herlock, how many forgers you know, who wanted their own forgery looked at as soon as possible, and authenticated??

How did that go for them?

Isn't it a bit like wanting your cat looked at as soon as possible and determined to be a dog?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just wondering, Herlock, how many forgers you know, who wanted their own forgery looked at as soon as possible, and authenticated??

How did that go for them?

Isn't it a bit like wanting your cat looked at as soon as possible and determined to be a dog?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I don't know any forgers personally so your question is impossible to answer but surely loads of art forgeries get wrongly authenticated. For the forger, that's the dream scenario, isn't it?

Are you saying that forgers don't want their forgeries looked at as soon as possible? And that they don't want someone to pronounce that their forgery is genuine?

If so, what do you think forgers do with their forgeries after completing them? And what do they want to happen to them?

[Lombro2]

Michael Barrett must have predicted all three of Melvin Harris' prediction because he "made contingencies" for all three.

1. He used a simple gall ink

2. He explained away the ripped pages by putting in how it was an office notebook in James' office (which it is--same as a ledger book but without lines, used for pictures and receipts, etc) and those pages had to be torn out as they would be incriminating if found in conjunction with his "confession".

3. He put in how James wrote his thoughts at work with people looking over his shoulder and in London with people hunting him high and low, so he didn't write neatly or legibly.

Then he completely forgot about it or he just played dumb. Pretty smart.


P.S. I'm surprised he didn't he didn't add the following in the diary:

I place this now in a air-tight cookie tin and place where it shall be found....

I guess even Anne can't think of everything.

[Kattrup]

Hi Caz,

I don't know any forgers personally so your question is impossible to answer but surely loads of art forgeries get wrongly authenticated. For the forger, that's the dream scenario, isn't it?

Are you saying that forgers don't want their forgeries looked at as soon as possible? And that they don't want someone to pronounce that their forgery is genuine?

If so, what do you think forgers do with their forgeries after completing them? And what do they want to happen to them?

One notes that Diary Defenders usually portray the risk to Barrett’s as immense, like some personal calamity would befall them and they would be imprisoned and lose their home and child and everything, were the forgery exposed early.

In truth, nothing would have happened. They would have been out what - 25-50 pounds and some personal embarrassment - since no one knew about the scam.
But it’s always presented like oh so risky, Diary Defenders using their own comfort zone to argue how difficult the scam would have seemed to them.

When in fact it was easy and the people involved personally profited from not questioning the diary closely.
As some of them still do.

[Lombro2]

Maybrick Defenders want people to accept a narrative without any evidence. I, for one, would gladly accept a seamless narrative that explains everything. I don't need an auction ticket or DB Cooper's money to accept a solution. Just give me a narrative that has no holes and makes common sense, as someone has done with DB Cooper, in my opinion.

Don't give us narratives with turns and twists a contortionist can't make squeezed in a box of 11 days, with explanations that are only within the realm of possibility, and say, "Look, everything is explainable!" There, eat it!

Besides, I'm probably the only one who would normally accept just a narrative as a solution to a mystery. Would anyone else accept just a narrative?

Or do they just accept a long list of "problematic" things and then say such-and-such must have been behind that fake beyond a reasonable doubt because he was caught with the hot potato? The narrative is then just moot like Mike's affidavit, holes and all. Seamless as Patty's fur coat.

[Pcdunn]

So would I, c.d., and I think the choices should be:

"Do you see the shapes which - it has been suggested - resemble an 'F' and and 'M' in this photograph?"
Yes, I know exactly which shapes are being referred to and they do resemble 'FM' in my opinion (granted, the 'F' is fainter than the 'M')
Yes, I know exactly which shapes are being referred to but they do not resemble 'FM' in my opinion
No, I cannot see the shapes at all

There are far more people read these posts than actually post themselves so if anyone knows how to make a poll, please step up to the plate here. Any volunteers (before we get 20 of them!)?

I would strongly recommend Farson (1973) as I don't think I've ever seen those 'shapes' more clearly elsewhere:



Mind you, the Huffington Post published a good one:



The more you blow the photograph up (or the more you home in on just the initials), the harder it is to detect the 'shapes', but that is true of most older photographs (of anything), I suspect.

I can see a fairly clear "M" on the wall in the first photo (Farson) but the "letter" on its left looks like a stylized "P" or even a Mordic rune. It mostly looks like a blotch of grimy blood splatter.

In the second photo, much the same, except smaller. The supposed "F" looks even more like a blotch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Michael Barrett must have predicted all three of Melvin Harris' prediction because he "made contingencies" for all three.

1. He used a simple gall ink

2. He explained away the ripped pages by putting in how it was an office notebook in James' office (which it is--same as a ledger book but without lines, used for pictures and receipts, etc) and those pages had to be torn out as they would be incriminating if found in conjunction with his "confession".

3. He put in how James wrote his thoughts at work with people looking over his shoulder and in London with people hunting him high and low, so he didn't write neatly or legibly.

Then he completely forgot about it or he just played dumb. Pretty smart.


P.S. I'm surprised he didn't he didn't add the following in the diary:

I place this now in a air-tight cookie tin and place where it shall be found....

I guess even Anne can't think of everything.

Hi Lombro,

I keep talking about "the forger" while you keep talking about "Michael Barrett". Do you know something I don't know?

I don't understand what you mean when you say that Barrett might have forgotten that he used a simple gall ink. Could you expand on what you mean by that?

I also don't believe it's correct to say that the forger "explained away the ripped pages". There is no such explanation in the diary is there? If you mean that the diarist wrote that he cursed Lowry for making him rip, that could just as easily mean making him rip the victims, could it not?

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the diary where the diarist says anyone was looking over his shoulder.

If your suggestion is that the forger should have produced an explanation for every problem with the diary, don't you think that would have looked a bit suspicious? Surely better to leave it others to work out. If that's what you call "playing dumb" then I don't see why not

[Herlock Sholmes]

One notes that Diary Defenders usually portray the risk to Barrett’s as immense, like some personal calamity would befall them and they would be imprisoned and lose their home and child and everything, were the forgery exposed early.

In truth, nothing would have happened. They would have been out what - 25-50 pounds and some personal embarrassment - since no one knew about the scam.
But it’s always presented like oh so risky, Diary Defenders using their own comfort zone to argue how difficult the scam would have seemed to them.

When in fact it was easy and the people involved personally profited from not questioning the diary closely.
As some of them still do.

Hi Kattrup,

I entirely agree. Furthermore, if we assume he was the forger, Mike had fully covered himself by saying that he'd been given the diary by his dead pal. He never once vouched for its authenticity.

So all the risks that are mentioned about the diary being proven to be a fake due to the handwriting not matching, or a problem with the ink, or some other mistake, didn't exist in reality. If it was shown to have been fake in the early days, Mike would have just said "what a shame" and got on with his life.

He would surely have expected the diary to go through some form of authentication before he could make any money from it. If it failed to be authenticated, it would be game over (or, at least, that's what one would think in a sane world) but if it was authenticated then perfect. All the possible mistakes had been avoided so let the money roll in.

Creating a fake Victorian diary signed "Jack the Ripper" isn't a crime in itself and there was no peril for the forger until there was a victim who had been defrauded (and who would complain to the police). Even if the police got involved, how were they going to prove that Mike forged it? The risks were therefore minimal and, certainly, I would have thought, when it comes to risk versus reward, that the potential reward outweighed the risk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybrick Defenders want people to accept a narrative without any evidence. I, for one, would gladly accept a seamless narrative that explains everything. I don't need an auction ticket or DB Cooper's money to accept a solution. Just give me a narrative that has no holes and makes common sense, as someone has done with DB Cooper, in my opinion.

Don't give us narratives with turns and twists a contortionist can't make squeezed in a box of 11 days, with explanations that are only within the realm of possibility, and say, "Look, everything is explainable!" There, eat it!

Besides, I'm probably the only one who would normally accept just a narrative as a solution to a mystery. Would anyone else accept just a narrative?

Or do they just accept a long list of "problematic" things and then say such-and-such must have been behind that fake beyond a reasonable doubt because he was caught with the hot potato? The narrative is then just moot like Mike's affidavit, holes and all. Seamless as Patty's fur coat.

Hi Lombro,

You ask for a seamless narrative that explains everything and makes sense but will reject such an explanation if it's within the realm of possibility. Have I got that right?

What is it that causes you difficulty about a modern forger such as Michael Barrett having created the diary? You mention 11 days, which I assume refers to Mike's claim that the diary was written in 11 days. What is it about that which makes no sense to you?