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

[caz]

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?

I was being a tease, Herlock, because even someone like Mike Barrett could not have expected his wife's 'blind' forgery to be authenticated as Maybrick's handiwork from 1888/9. According to the Barrett theory, it wasn't even an attempt by Anne to deceive anyone, but a piece of creative fiction which Mike evidently thought he could pinch and pass off as a genuine confession by JM/JtR. How on earth he could have been remotely confident, let alone 'entirely satisfied' that what she had put into the diary's creation would not immediately be seen for what it was, is a question that no doubt Palmer feels most qualified to answer, but 'mental vegetable' sounds quite an apt description for anyone who would seriously present their wife's intentionally fictional story, hoping it would be mistaken for anything else. I mean, who does that in the real world? Has anyone heard of a comparable example?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Well, I guess the Barretts had their trusty crystal ball to tell them that they couldn't fail, as seasoned forger Konrad Kujau had failed ten years previously and been imprisoned.

As for 'some of them' still personally profiting from not questioning the diary closely, it would be odd if anyone wanted that to be the case, just so they could complain about it, so it would make a nice change to have names, because I don't know of anyone who has personally made a net profit in recent years from anything connected with the diary - which ought to be a comfort if true.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Love it. I'm not sure if Herlock meant to provide an argument for his hoaxer not wanting the handwriting to look like Maybrick's, but it's a new one on me and this is Diary World after all.

Love,

Caz
X

I think you misunderstood me Caz, I was confronting Lombro with the possibility, which didn't seem to have occurred to him, that if it made sense to him it could equally have made sense to the forger.

I didn't think it made sense. See my later #214 in which I wrote: "I would like to make clear for the avoidance of doubt that I don't think your statement makes any sense at all."

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was being a tease, Herlock, because even someone like Mike Barrett could not have expected his wife's 'blind' forgery to be authenticated as Maybrick's handiwork from 1888/9. According to the Barrett theory, it wasn't even an attempt by Anne to deceive anyone, but a piece of creative fiction which Mike evidently thought he could pinch and pass off as a genuine confession by JM/JtR. How on earth he could have been remotely confident, let alone 'entirely satisfied' that what she had put into the diary's creation would not immediately be seen for what it was, is a question that no doubt Palmer feels most qualified to answer, but 'mental vegetable' sounds quite an apt description for anyone who would seriously present their wife's intentionally fictional story, hoping it would be mistaken for anything else. I mean, who does that in the real world? Has anyone heard of a comparable example?

Love,

Caz
X

When you refer to "the Barrett theory" what exactly are you referring to Caz?

Why could someone like Mike Barrett not have expected his wife's blind forgery to be authenticated as Maybrick's handiwork from 1888/9? I don't understand why not. You don't explain it.

Haven't Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison, Doreen Montgomery and others (including our very own Ike) all held the belief that it was Maybrick's handiwork?

[caz]

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

This all relies on 'if we assume he was the forger', which kind of makes any further argument redundant and circular, because you can make it fit the assumed narrative.

Now apply all the above reasoning to a document created by someone who is not among the named suspects, and who never had any intention of identifying themselves with it, and therefore didn't need to think about the handwriting, or any other aspect letting them down or catching them out, from the ink and paper, to the language and psycopathy, or the history and geography. That could only ever be a problem for anyone who ended up with it through happenstance, if they decided to do anything with it other than to set it alight.

Would the money motive not have gone up in flames with the diary, when Anne tried to burn it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Lombro2]

Caz, this is why you are the vindshield viper!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This all relies on 'if we assume he was the forger', which kind of makes any further argument redundant and circular, because you can make it fit the assumed narrative.

Now apply all the above reasoning to a document created by someone who is not among the named suspects, and who never had any intention of identifying themselves with it, and therefore didn't need to think about the handwriting, or any other aspect letting them down or catching them out, from the ink and paper, to the language and psycopathy, or the history and geography. That could only ever be a problem for anyone who ended up with it through happenstance, if they decided to do anything with it other than to set it alight.

Would the money motive not have gone up in flames with the diary, when Anne tried to burn it?

Love,

Caz
X

I don't think you're understanding me correctly Caz. I wasn't making any form a circular argument because I wasn't arguing that Michael Barrett was the forger. The point I was making was straightforward one - If Mike was the forger, as some people have suggested, and if the diary was exposed as a forgery, he wasn't in any serious legal peril because he never vouched for the diary's authenticity.

You must agree with that statement, surely. And it has to be predicated on the basis that Mike was the forger because there's no other way of expressing it. The only danger for Mike (as the forger) would have been if it was proven that he didn't receive the diary from Tony Devereux but was responsible for creating it. Something which would have been difficult to do. Only then would he have been in the you-know-what.

Now, the only reason I wrote what I did was because Kattrup had said in the post to which I was responding, "Diary Defenders usually portray the risk to Barrett's as immense". So the only purpose of my post was to say, in agreement with Kattrup, that, really, there was very little risk to the Barretts.

For that reason, the rest of your post about another unnamed forger makes no sense to me. You seem to be trying to make an entirely different point which bears no relation to mine or Kattrup's. This is that an unidentified forger would not have bothered recreating Maybrick's handwriting in the diary (even though they presumably could have done) because there was no risk to them if the diary was shown not to have been by James Maybrick. Leaving aside that I can't fathom why they would have wanted to create such a diary in the first place nor how it ended up with Michael Barrett, I could just as easily say that because there was no risk to them of ever being arrested for fraud, because they were unknown, they might as well have attempted to recreate Maybrick's handwriting to make the diary appear far more convincing. But when talking about unknown people with unknown motives it just seems to pointless to discuss it.

You then made another separate and disconnected point about whether the money would have gone up in flames "when Anne tried to burn it". The simple answer is that if the diary had been burnt there would have been no money to have been made from it. But what independent evidence is there that Anne really did try to burn it? She certainly didn't do a very good job of it! I may be misremembering Caz but didn’t I read something about her insisting on the diary being kept at the bank because of her fear of it going up in a house fire?

[Lombro2]

The fact that they were under no threat for their supposed "creative writing" project doesn't help you.

1. It's still a stupid thing to do so who cares if there was a legitimate threat or not

2. The real threat that they obviously seemed to fear would come from ratting out or exposing a thief or a gang of thieves. That helps the Fence Theory again.

[Lombro2]

Here's a question for you: How does the Red Diary help the Forgery Theory more than the Fence Theory?

We already know there was a "doppelganger" gold Verity watch. It obviously wasn't the Johnson Maybrick watch and I believe they were linked together and then the Johnson watch was given the "sock drawer" Provenance which Barrett Believers believe in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that they were under no threat for their supposed "creative writing" project doesn't help you.

1. It's still a stupid thing to do so who cares if there was a legitimate threat or not

2. The real threat that they obviously seemed to fear would come from ratting out or exposing a thief or a gang of thieves. That helps the Fence Theory again.

Firstly, I'm glad you accept that there was no real risk the Barretts, assuming they were the forgers, in submitting the diary for publication
but when you say it was "a stupid thing to do" are you referring to not writing it in Maybrick's handwriting or creating the diary in general? Either way, a number of people wanted to pay them to publish it and I’ve always been under the impression that the book sold a lot of copies so perhaps the forgers were cleverer than you think?

If you believe that they "obviously seemed to fear" a thief or gang of thieves then of course you are likely to think that they obtained the diary from a thief but the idea that they were afraid of thief seems to derive from your imagination only Lombro.

As already stated, it's not the red diary that supports the idea that the Barretts forged the diary. It's the fact that Barrett was attempting to obtain a genuine diary from the decade of the Ripper murders with blank pages. Would you call that an unconnected coincidence or do you have another explanation?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

Have you considered the possibility that what Mike was attempting to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders?

Yes, indeed, I have, Herlock, and - whilst it is instinctively a good challenge on the surface - it does fail rather quickly in the mind for this reason: if Barrett was seeking 'authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders' he would not need to start at 1880 and end at 1890. He unnecessarily started late (he could have used a scrapbook from 1830 if that was all he could get his hands on) and he unnecessarily ended early (a scrapbook from 1891 to, say, 1899 would presumably be just as indistinguishable as one from that other impossible year, 1890).

So, if you want that notion to be convincing, you have to argue that Barrett either didn't think it through properly or else he didn't actually make that specific request but the guy who placed the ad for Barrett is on the record (SocPill202?) as stating that he would never add defining detail which his client had not explicitly requested of him.

So, defence of this argument requires Barrett to have not thought it through sufficiently and that's good news for the argument because - let's face it - it wouldn't have been the only example on record which makes Barrett's achievement all the more astonishing in my book.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

In #199 you asked for an answer to the question as to why Michael Barrett's affidavit included the wrong date for when Barrett started to expose the fraud. Could that question not reasonably be described as an old canard?

I have to ask though, in regard to your last question, surely you aren’t suggesting that those of us who don’t have years of experience of all things diary should bother contributing?

As an aside first, just back from Coventry (not Liverpool, RJ) with a Midlands cold starting and reading Robert Smith's True History of the Diary of Jack the Ripper again in bed last night with half a cup of hot milk stirred into my half a cup of 10-year old malt, I was struck by this comment:

"On 22nd June [this is 1994, by the way], just five days after Montgomery's note to Anne [Barrett], Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy, her business partner and researcher, were paying a visit to Jenny's [a new friend of Mike Barrett] home, where Barrett was staying. It was at that moment when he first dropped the bombshell, claiming that he himself had forged the diary. Harrison described his shocking announcement in her book: "He was bitter and angry that he had not seen his daughter and threatened to tell everything to the national press." Fuelled by alcohol, he didn't care that he was giving the lie to the diary being handed to him by Tony Devereux. In his manic state, he was determined to "get back at Anne" (as he would later explain) and destroy Feldman's theory that the diary "had been in Anne's family for years", even if it meant smashing the diary's credibility as an authentic Victorian document, as well as the book's publication prospects and his future income from it. Revenge on Anne for leaving him, for interfering in his relationship with Jenny, and for depriving him of Caroline (as he believed), had tipped him over the edge into irrationality."

Barrett had claimed that he had been trying since December 1993 to reveal the truth through Shirley Harrison. She mustn't have had very good hearing, I guess. Take home message? The January 5, 1995 affidavit signed (but almost certainly not solely authored) by Mike Barrett is a worthless piece of mince and should never be relied on for anything. The evidence for this reaches right to the heart of that viper Melvin Harris who had done so much to kill the scrapbook at source because of all that integrity he was building up inside him as he saw the prospects of his 1994 work on Stephenson go gradually down the pan. The viperous viper had the affidavit in his hands in January 1995 and he did absolutely nothing with it. All that integrity and he sat on this explosive 'truth' about the scrapbook which he had courted for so long through Alan Gray!

Anyway, back to your original question, I do not believe that I implied that I myself was not also guilty of hoisting up the old canards? I think I used the term 'we' at least once. I am frequently wrong about details and sometimes I do not practice what I preach, and therefore perhaps I am inadvertently hypocritical. This is not because I don't care about the truth but because my memory occasionally lets me down when I post and occasionally it bedfellow - logic - too.

Anyway, just a quick post back form me in between the Lemsips and the water of life ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

If he hasn't, he should really ask himself why he is ignoring that possibility.

Can we now agree that I have?

After all, it was his good friend Lord Orsam who discovered that Barrett's own magazine of choice, to which he had been a frequent contributor during his secret career as a freelance writer in the 1980s, had published a piece on the Hitler Diaries, indicating that non-period paper proved to be Konrad Kujau's downfall.

Home and ******* Garden probably published an article on the Hitler diaries fiasco, RJ - I vaguely recall reading it in Whizzer and Chips and The Beano at one point! You've really got to think through your obfuscating and muddying instincts before you reveal to the world the biases you positively sweat out of every pore as you type, mate.

A real gem of a discovery.

I think I recall Watch With Mother covering it too in an episode of Camberwick Green titled Muddy the Mud Boy Gets Mainly Muddy ...

And it is impossible to be a daily record of events, because there are not enough entries. Only on the very last page is there a date. The writer dates it like he is dating his confession. There is a similar date on the last page of William Henry Bury's confession.

Wow - that must be yet ANOTHER book the otherwise apparently bewildered and hapless Mike Barrett had read in his extensive research that one wet weekend in Liverpool ...

But the important thing is that to Barrett it was a diary, thus we know what Barrett meant by a diary: a blank book, with no printed dates, to which one adds his own writing.

You're thinking too hard, RJ - it's making you sweat again. I think we can grant that even Mike Barrett had the intelligence to work out that diaries become diaries when documents are used for the purpose of recording one's inner thoughts over a period of time. It's no biggie. Ordinary, it's a scrapbook but if you skip all the scrap elements (like an ex-scrap metal dealer would do effortlessly, ha ha), you could have a diary or an autobiography or a football match report or a tale about alien abductions in Barnsley. His own decisions.

Mike, the hoaxer, was after a blank book with forensically bullet-proof pages -- at a bare minimum of twenty of them.

Well, if he was going to check how easily such a document could be located, it would make sense to check how easily such a document could be located which could easily be used for a hoax (which he could not be certain he did not already have in his hands).

But belief in this relic relies on self-deception and so it is pretended that Barrett means something else by the word 'diary'--he means a daily planner or a business memorandum constrained by dates indelibly stamped on each page. This self-deception is necessary in order to keep belief alive, even if it runs directly against what Barrett called a diary.

You've lost me ...

It is my belief that Mike was after the raw materials of a hoax because he intended to hoax the confession of James Maybrick.

Well, good for you, RJ. Just out of interest, have you ever believed something was true then found out it wasn't? Or have you lived a long life of blessed certitude without the occasional discomfort of contradiction and error?

Bizarrely, even those who irrationally doubt Barrett's involvement can only explain Mike's request to Martin Earl as Barrett's attempt to obtain the raw materials of a hoax. Ultimately, they agree with me.

They do, and - as usual - you seek to advance your case with such slender relevance to it.

In one version, Mike is doing so because he fears Mr. Lyons may be swindling him, so he wants to see if it is possible to easily obtain the raw materials of a hoax--a counter explanation that brings a smile.

You see what he's up to (again), dear readers? By slipping in the 'that brings a smile', he's saying 'Watch out, you'd be considered a complete twat around these parts if you don't agree with me'.

In another version, Mike is attempting to obtain the raw materials of a hoax in order to create his own substitute Jack the Ripper confessional in case the police come knocking for Eddy's original--another smile inducer.

I refer my dear readers to my previous response regarding RJ's barely masked threats.

We all agree that Mike's request to Earl was an attempt to obtain the raw materials for a hoax. This is progress. It only took 33 years for us to reach an agreement, so we should be able to wrap this up by the year 2058.

And how much more wonderful would it be if any of that meant anything of actual consequence???

[Iconoclast]

Apologies, Herlock. My paraphrasing was overly generous to Baxendale. In his own words [with emphasis where due]:

'My opinion, therefore, is that the ink does not date from 1889. An exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945.'

Hi Caz,

If we are to believe the likes of RJ and Orsam, Baxendale told Maurice Chittenden of The Sunday Times almost a year after he wrote his various reports that (and I paraphrase here) the ink was pretty much dripping out of the pages onto the floor they were that recently laid down.

Begs the question, though: why not just say that in your report? 'It was dripping wet', 'I got drenched in it', 'It must have been laid down a few months ago'.

I just can't understand why a guy who freely admitted he was very badly wrong about the properties of ink and therefore asked for his report to be kept from public view would not at least mention that it was clearly put on the paper in 1992.

I'm beat!

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Yes, indeed, I have, Herlock, and - whilst it is instinctively a good challenge on the surface - it does fail rather quickly in the mind for this reason: if Barrett was seeking 'authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders' he would not need to start at 1880 and end at 1890. He unnecessarily started late (he could have used a scrapbook from 1830 if that was all he could get his hands on) and he unnecessarily ended early (a scrapbook from 1891 to, say, 1899 would presumably be just as indistinguishable as one from that other impossible year, 1890).

They must be coddin' us, Dear Boss.

Now the 'mental vegetable' Bongo Barrett is an expert on paper fiber and paper manufacturing!

Let's return to reality, folks. Shall we?

All Bongo knows, from reading Celebrity magazine, is that his German counterpart Konrad Kujua was tripped up by something he didn't know about paper manufacturing!!

And knowing that he doesn't know what he doesn't know, Bongo plays it safe and requests a diary with paper manufactured in the same general 'ballpark.'

It's not rocket science, and Bongo was no rocket scientist neither, but to maintain belief, one must sometimes be overly-subtle. Messrs. Leahy and Atkinson are currently learning the same technique in regard to the 'Tilly' letter.

And did I say how much I am enjoying this symposium?

I remember a time when the Barretts were too dim to have created a document that had (supposedly!) "fooled the experts."

Now the Barretts were far too clever and cautious to pawn off such an obvious fake! Far too clever to request paper from the 1880s instead of 1850-1900 when they are trying to bamboozle us!

Hell, they didn't even fake Maybrick's handwriting! How could they have believed for one second that even an utter moron would take the diary seriously without faking the handwriting?

Yet here we are.

So, let's add Prof. Rubenstein, Peter Wood, and Colin Wilson to Herlock's long list of people insulted by this line of argument.

You've come a long way, baby.