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

[Iconoclast]

No one on this forum, with one possible exception, has treated Barrett in a more slanted and shabby manner than Ike, so acting as if he’s defending Barrett from a raving and irrational mob is quite rich.

I was a great deal more worried about the Black Maria than Barrett ...

[Iconoclast]

From the mention of the initials, which, as we've discussed previously, suggests knowledge of MJK1, we can probably say no earlier than 1972.

Careful. Some posters have told us that those pesky initials are not there in MJK1 and they expect to be taken seriously in this regard.

[Lombro2]

Hey, Ike, how do you like being called a "religionist"? About as much as Caz likes being called a "Maybrickian"?

So, in this faith-based "religion", is Maybrick God or the Devil? Is he an object or worship? Or is he your Profit?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, she was referring to Tony Devereux (or at least we have all assumed) and, yes, if this happened and it was Tony Devereux Mike was ringing (we don't know that Mike was ringing Tony, Caroline could have assumed this) then it must have been before early August 1991 when Tony had a fatal heart attack.



Yes, she did indeed. This can be interpreted any which way one chooses - one of which is that she believed it was a genuine historical document (because it had been in her family for years) or suspected it was a stolen genuine historical document (because she had seen it suddenly appear in Mike's hands on March 9, 1992, or very soon thereafter).

Thank you for the info, Ike.
'
If we're guessing that Caroline got it all wrong about Tony, perhaps we should be wondering if she was also confused about what was happening with the supposed struggle over the diary, especially as the conversation was filtered through Feldman.

As for the bank vault, that's my whole point. If she believed or suspected it was a genuine historical document which she wanted to protect from a fire, why was she trying desperately to throw it on the fire? That's the contradiction that I'm having trouble with

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would it be possible to be a little bit more circumspect in your assumptions, then, until you have properly evaluated the case? Perhaps it might be worth reading some of the books on the scrapbook too, for example?

I suspect that would be a lost cause as you are now heavily invested into RJ's way of thinking which is a genuine shame because there is a very good chance (and I speak euphemistically here) that he's been drinking far too much Orsam Aid to really assess the case without bias.

Perhaps you don't realise it, Ike, but that's a pretty condescending thing for you to say. Have you forgotten what you were told in no uncertain terms by JM only a few months back? "Members can post on any thread they wish, regardless of what they have and haven’t read "

And I don't believe I'm making any "assumptions". I'm just looking at the evidence and I haven’t drunk any kind of imaginary "Aid". I make up my own mind on these things, thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Careful. Some posters have told us that those pesky initials are not there in MJK1 and they expect to be taken seriously in this regard.

I think you're confusing two things, Ike: the supposed "FM" on the wall, which I don't believe the forger perceived, and the supposed "F" carved onto the arm and an "M" shape on the wall. I do think the forger could have perceived those two latter "initials" and I think it's what he or she must have been talking about in the diary.

To be clear, it not an "F" on the arm nor an "M" on the wall but I can understand why a forger might have attempted to use those shapes, in a cryptic way, to bolster the narrative of the diary.

[Geddy2112]

I think you're confusing two things, Ike: the supposed "FM" on the wall, which I don't believe the forger perceived, and the supposed "F" carved onto the arm and an "M" shape on the wall. I do think the forger could have perceived those two latter "initials" and I think it's what he or she must have been talking about in the diary.

The main problem, in my opinion with the 'F' carved into the arm is it only possibly could be an F from the point of view the photo is taken, that being said how did the killer know where to position the arm so the camera got the correct perspective to make it look like an F?

[rjpalmer]

The main problem, in my opinion with the 'F' carved into the arm is it only possibly could be an F from the point of view the photo is taken, that being said how did the killer know where to position the arm so the camera got the correct perspective to make it look like an F?

This is an erudite point first raised by Professor Alex Chisholm, a lecturer in history from Wales, when he commented on the diary decades ago.

"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective. The diarist does not claim to have left in front of 'them' or the 'fools' but only in front for all eyes to see.' The wall on which these initials were supposed to have been written [and let's also add Kelly's forearm] was at the right side of the room on entry, to the right side of Kelly. The only thing the initials could reasonably be described of as 'in front of' being the police photographer's lens."

In other words, the hoaxer was aware of the Kelly photograph.

I would add that the hoaxer is almost begging his or her readers to refer to the Kelly photograph in order to look for the 'clue' that the 'fools' could not find.

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

The hoaxer also assumed that the reader would have access to the police photograph in order to solve this puzzle, which again rationally dates the diary to the 1960s or later, when the photograph first obtained wide circulation.

Before that date, the photo was either in the off-limits City of London Police materials or in one exceedingly rare book in French--so rare that to this day only one library in the UK owns a copy, and that Library was only founded after the diary was published.

Regards.

[erobitha]

That doesn’t make his affidavit automatically true, but it does mean that it would be incompetent not to intelligently investigate it, particularly since elements of it have been confirmed.

What elements?

[rjpalmer]

If what Caroline was saying was true. I do see what you mean about Anne getting upset that her husband wanted to get the diary published which, perhaps, she had never thought he would do. But can I ask you this, Roger, because the others don't seem to want to help me. Did I read somewhere that Anne wanted to have the diary put in a bank vault in order to protect it from a house fire? Or did I imagine this?

Hi Herlock,

I'm reluctant to quote from the archives, as it invariably leads to a bollocking, but in this case I am surprised that you can't find the quote for yourself, because it was a claim Caroline Brown made barely a week ago--in a post directed to you.

It is not disputed that she had a big row with Mike over the diary at one point, and had tried but failed to destroy it, which would be understandable in those circumstances, except that only a week or so after it was seen in London, she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft.

What I find annoying is that Caz herself acknowledges that Anne frequently contradicts herself, and yet when I similarly point this out, she accuses my "theory" of being muddled in regard to Anne when in reality I am merely acknowledging Anne's contradictory behavior and contradictory statements, rather than ignoring them. I have incorporated this obvious reality into my analysis, in a way no one else has, with the possible exception of the late Martin Fido.

As for Caroline Barrett, I don't deny that she would have been coached. It goes without saying if the Barretts were the hoaxers, she would need to be trained to repeat the claim that the Diary came from Devereux, and that she has seen her father pestering him on the phone, and spend many hours researching the diary, etc.

I still can't imagine, however, why the Barretts would coach her to say there was a struggle going on behind-the-scenes. What would be the strategical purpose of coaching her to say this?

About the only counter explanation that I can come up with is that having been coached, Caroline herself couldn't work out what the right answer should be when suddenly quizzed by Paul and Martin, so blurting out that her mum tried to burn the diary, thinking it would somehow help the cause. Whether you find that a plausible explanation, I do not know.

If I was having this conversation with David Barrat or Peter Birchwood or someone else who sees no reason to expand the list of suspects beyond Mike and Anne, I would be hard pressed to argue that Anne wasn't an enthusiastic accomplice, as she admits to typing up the transcript, typing up the bogus research notes, supported the Devereux provenance, and (as far as we know) must have went along with many of Barrett's other porkies in the early days of the diary. And I even think there is a very solid chance she was the pen person. We are hampered in knowing how much she went along, however, as we don't have any recordings or transcripts of those early conversations with Anne, by which I mean those dating to before she left Barrett. It's would certainly be an entirely rational conclusion, but some of Anne's behavior makes me wonder if she didn't want the whole thing to blow up when Mike took the diary to London. She certainly seemed to be afraid of the investigation in a way that Barrett wasn't.

Regards.