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

[caz]

In his January 5, 1995 affidavit, Mike Barrett had the perfect opportunity to enumerate a long list of where he got his references from which he used in his hoaxed scrapbook but - instead - he seemed to deliberately focus on aspects of his 'creation' which were patently untrue. I wonder why that was?

If you or I had done what Barrett claimed to do, there is a good chance that our January 5, 1995 affidavits would have included:

"I got the reference to 'Punch' from the back of Fido (1987)".
"I got the reference to 'left my mark' from Fido (1987)".
"I spotted that 'Juwes' looked a bit like 'James' when I saw the GSG in [wherever]".
Et cetera.

There must have been many other references which he could have included which would have given us some degree of confidence that he had indeed been aware of a number of Ripper-related books but he chose to focus on things which he 'did' or which 'happened' which were simply untrue. It's almost as though he was - deep down - trying to show the world how little he knew and how little he had actually wanted to create that affidavit.

No?

Ike

You forget, dear Ike, that it was supposedly created for Anne's eyes only, to give her a bit of a fright and hopefully persuade her to talk to him and let him see Caroline. He didn't need to include any incriminating details if she knew them all like the back of her hand, did he? All she needed to believe was that next time, if she didn't give in to his emotionally-charged demands, he might actually swear a truthful affidavit, with bells and whistles, and all the right notes in the right order [thank you, Eric] and then send it straight to Harold Brough, cutting out the middle woman.

Or maybe not.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hey, whatever happened to Peter Wood anyway?

One would hope Mr. Wood eventually came to his sense, but this is unlikely. In its most virulent form, Maybrickitis is utterly incurable.

In other words, once you believe Jim is Jack, you can't go back.

I think Neil Young wrote a song about it.

[Iconoclast]

Here's another 'typo' or three by Mike Barrett which is also presumably irrelevant to whether his affidavit was even vaguely trustworthy.

Mike made the request through HP Bookfinders.
It was made in March 1992.
HP Bookfinders are not listed in the 1985, 1989, nor 1993 Writers' & Artists' Yearbook (so, presumably, not in the 1986 one).
Technically, Anne did pay for the diary but it is moot whether one can say that that is the same as 'Anne purchased a Diary'.

This all seems to suggest that Mike was lying through his teeth when that affidavit was created. None of these things matter, of course, because affidavits are just like private notebooks that you can throw ideas around in without any recourse to accuracy, it would appear.

It is a curious fact that when asked for the small red diary, rather than make any attempt to hide the fact it had been purchased, Anne produced it and even produced the cheque stub to show when she paid for it and how much she paid. Really seriously curious behaviour from a hoaxer's wife who had apparently got her fingerprints all over the hoax itself. She evidently had some balls that woman.

[rjpalmer]

I occasionally post in a Zodiac killer forum and recently a fellow member referred to another member as a "VPN Viper". Any idea what this is? I've asked but haven't had a reply yet

It seems rather straight forward. VPN Viper, like the Zodiac, is communicating in such a way that he or she can't be traced.

When someone posts on-line, unbeknownst to them, their computer leaves a sort of fingerprint of their server; if the person sets up a VPN, however, that fingerprint is hidden, so the website owner or the email recipient can't trace the sender's location or identity.

In theory, the website owner should be able to determine whether 'Soothsayer' and 'Peter Wood' and 'Tom Mitchell' and 'Gladiator' and 'Shirley Harrison' and other Maybrick theorists did or did not all post from the same small village in the Outer Hebrides, unless they set up a VPN (A Virtual Private Network) to hide this fact.

I'm not implying all those people were one & the same, however. Only some of them were the same brainwashed acolyte of Paul Feldman.

[Iconoclast]

Charles Lechmere ...

He obviously did it.

William Bury ...

So did he.

James Maybrick ...

OMG - what a stupid theory! Based on what? Who said it? Where's the evidence? How come he was never mentioned before? Bollocks, pareidolia, lies, money, fraud!

Michael Barrett ...

Obviously hoaxed it! He said so, didn't he? He confessed. What more do you people want???

It's what most of us do.

Not me. I wasn't Jack the Ripper, thank you.

PS I didn't actually read your post, Caz, before I replied to it so my apologies if any small parts of it are not quite logical or relevant.

[Iconoclast]

I read somewhere recently that Mike Barrett tried to buy a pot of ink once when he was 13 years old.

RJ, I leave it to you to draw your usual incisive inferences from this damning evidence against him ...

[Iconoclast]

Can I just add here that it is astonishingly easy sitting on this side of the fence this morning. I'm loving it! All you have to do is say things like, 'Bollocks', and make assertions you can't properly back up and about forty people will pile-in in support and rush to hit the 'Like' button (I didn't realise being 'Liked' was a measure of your competence - good to know) saying stuff like, "These idiots with their stupid theories are just trolls and time-wasters".

I'm looking for an easy life these days. It's a toss-up between sleeping all day or replying to posts on Casebook which contribute nothing to the debate and potentially are not even logically constructed.

Ooh, decisions, decisions ...

[caz]

You do not need to believe that the Maybrick scrapbook is genuine in the process of agreeing that there is not one scintilla of categorical evidence that Mike Barrett (and therefore Ann Graham) had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of it.

I understand fully that Barrett is the easey [sic] answer to the quandary of who - in your opinion - created this clever hoax which has bedevilled us for over thirty years now, and I understand that you will not have any idea whatsoever who could have done so, when, and why if you accept that there is no categorical evidence against Barrett. I understand, therefore, that the Barrett option is actually highly attractive even without categorical evidence because it permits you to declare the scrapbook a hoax without the need to do any more thinking about it than that.

The Maybrick scrapbook could be a hoax. I - and I seem to stand alone in this but that doesn't bother me - believe it is almost certainly authentic (see my remarkable Society's Pillar update when it is posted here). But what I can say with categorical certainty is that there is not a single piece of categorical evidence which proves that Barrett created a hoax. For your hoaxer, you need to look elsewhere, but I understand that that requires a massive amount of effort and commitment and I don't think anyone who posts here or reads here has that motivation.

For what I trust are obvious reasons, I won't be doing so either ...

Ike

Morning Ike,

Charles Lechmere was 'found' with a 'freshly' killed victim of Jack the Ripper and then 'lied' to a copper, ergo he was a serial killer, hiding in plain sight. They scratch the surface and find nothing so they have to imagine what wickedness must lie beneath.

William Bury was hanged for killing his own wife and lied about it, ergo he was Jack the Ripper. He was undoubtedly a very wicked and violent man, so a case can be made for him taking the full extent of his murderous character and exploits to the grave.

James Maybrick was known to have been a brothel-creeping, drug-abusing, adulterous and secretive hypochondriac, who struck his wife in front of witnesses, ergo the author of his diary didn't need to go digging into his soul to portray a man - who was outwardly only respectable "up to a point, Lord Copper" - as rotten to the core.

Michael Barrett was 'found' with the 'freshly' written diary of Jack the Ripper and then lied about this, that and the other for the rest of his days, ergo he 'wRoT' it himself, or got his intellectually challenged doormat of a wife to do it for him. What more 'pRoFF' does anyone need, that if we cut their heads off we'd see the word H O A X E R running through them like letters through sticks of New Brighton rock?

It's what most of us do. When a person's faults and wrongdoings can be seen out there in the open, we don't generally believe they will be squeaky clean below the surface, with no secrets they would sooner never tell - secrets, for instance, that might have energised the police or made a vicar blush had they been fully, credibly and coherently confessed.

I see Chris Jones as an exception, because he's done a lot of digging and champions the real James Maybrick - underneath just a thin veneer of character weakness - as a salt of the earth, all round decent cove with a wide circle of friends, and one who wouldn't even have thought of hurting that proverbial fly.

But most of us don't see angels or devils lurking beneath philanderers and liars until we consider the evidence for it overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

My point Ike is that the argument of the flash in my view, is equal to that of pareidolia. On the face of it, pareidolia is a fair and reasonable theory. As much as those claiming you and I are seeing things seems to be regarded as a valid argument, then they must equally accept and consider the photographer's flash only bringing the initials to light as being of equal value argument.

Rubbish, stupid points. Obviously pareidolia. Why don't you wake up? It's an obvious fraud and there's obviously no initials on the wall even though loads of people can see them without any problem whatsoever. You're just biased and spinning things to suit your own argument. It's like a religion to people like you - you'd say anything to keep this fraud going. You're probably making money out of it!

I'm willing to accept that I cannot rule our pareidolia. Can they rule out the photographer's flash argument? I am guessing they will try even though the evidence is just as good, if not stronger. It shows clear bias.

Of course we can rule out the photographer's flash! How come no-one in that room said in the trillionth of a second that the room lit up, "Hey, I see Florence Maybrick's initials on the wall there, James Maybrick must be Jack the Ripper"? Come on - surely no-one's taking this seriously?

I stand on the side of I see FM ...

Well, you would, wouldn't you?

... and I believe no one else saw it at the time due to the poorly lit room.

Bollocks.

Who is going to notice blood amongst blood in a dark corner of the room?

Der! Only the brilliant Metropolitan Police detective squad of 1888 - arguably the finest minds the criminal world has ever had to face.

It was hardly CSI-standard forensics back then.

And you would know! Were you there?

Oh - and the diary was obviously written by Mike and Anne Barrett (should have said that first).

[Observer]

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

I occasionally post in a Zodiac killer forum and recently a fellow member referred to another member as a "VPN Viper". Any idea what this is? I've asked but haven't had a reply yet

[Herlock Sholmes]

My point about the Cottingley Fairies was that debunkers love hoaxes. They're not going to debate letter pareidolia and ask everyone to do a Rorschach test over an incidental part, of a contested text, that is a matter of interpretation and therefore inconsequential and you therefore win no argument anyway but you keep trying to. Why? What is it about the Diary that brings out the yadda yadda nada.

You post as if you have some resentment against ‘debunkers.’ As if they are evil ‘bubble bursters.’ There would be little need for them if the world wasn’t so ripe with childishly gullible conspiracy theorists who wouldn’t know reason if they tripped over it.

[Iconoclast]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

Anyone who puts himself or herself up as a beacon of 'integrity' had better be without blemish or the possibility of bias or blame. If you want to be taken seriously, you recognise that you will appear to have a humungous vested interest in killing the scrapbook story stone dead as quickly as you can and you keep your big gob shut on the subject of your so-called 'integrity'. That's why Melvin Harris was a viper. Like Alice Yapp, he claimed one thing and behaved another. (I answered this some posts ago yesterday but not everyone reads posts before they reply to them.)

And don't start me on the famous '3 predictions'! I have asked this question many times before and never got an answer: to whom did Melvin Harris make these three predictions and where is the record of him making them? To be 'predictions', they needed to be made before he knew the answers to them and - as man of so much self-asserted 'integrity' - his soothsaying needed to be on the record. To my knowledge, it is not. If they were just three predictions made in his head and never shared with anyone until he knew they were correct, that's nothing to shout your gob off about.

By the way, I made a prediction yesterday morning that Newcastle would beat Arsenal 2-0 last evening, that Isak would have an early goal disallowed, and that Mikel Arteta would still look like he came out of a box of Lego at the end of the game.

How did I do, everyone?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Melvin Harris was labelled a Hoaxer in Ripperology, sometime after I found Roslyn D'Onston's plagiarism of Bulwer-Lytton. What's worse? Viper or Hoaxer?

His book was coming out on 94 with his 6 foot plus non-starter suspect but fascinating character with a life fabricated in his own imagination and that of Bulwer-Lytton. In 92, Harris immediately attacked the Diary that, if real, would destroy any chance his book had, sight unseen. So he came up with is famous three predictions that could easily work for a typical schizophrenic, cheap, skinflint, Scrooge serial killer. And went on the warpath to promote himself and the book and his suspect. If he was fair, he'd admit when one of the thousand and one things he threw at the Diary wall didn't stick.

Caz is a vindshield viper because the same gnats keep striking her windshield and they have to be viped off.

How does the fact that Melvin Harris was "skilled at exposing hoaxes and frauds" long before the emergence of the diary, according to his biography on Casebook, fit in with your theory about him? How does the fact that he continued to argue that the diary was a hoax for the ten years after publication of his book about Stephenson, until his death, fit in with your fact-free theory? And do, please, continue to speculate from the very depths of your imagination about his motives.

[erobitha]

Er ... pareidolia ... er ... stupid ... er why did the coppers not look ... er ... er ... Ike's a twat ...er ... er ... er ... [****, I'm in danger of losing a point here] ... er ... er ... blood splatters!

My point Ike is that the argument of the flash in my view, is equal to that of pareidolia. On the face of it, pareidolia is a fair and reasonable theory. As much as those claiming you and I are seeing things seems to be regarded as a valid argument, then they must equally accept and consider the photographer's flash only bringing the initials to light as being of equal value argument.

I'm willing to accept that I cannot rule our pareidolia. Can they rule out the photographer's flash argument? I am guessing they will try even though the evidence is just as good, if not stronger. It shows clear bias.

I stand on the side of I see FM, and I believe no one else saw it at the time due to the poorly lit room. Who is going to notice blood amongst blood in a dark corner of the room? It was hardly CSI-standard forensics back then.

[Iconoclast]

It is possible that the alleged “FM” initials in the crime scene photo of Mary Jane Kelly were only visible in the photograph due to the photographer’s flash or other photographic effects, rather than being noticeable to the naked eye at the time.
Here’s why:
1. Early Photography and Flash Effects
• Late 19th-century photography often used magnesium flash powder, which produced a harsh, bright light that could highlight details otherwise unseen in dim conditions.
• The angle of light and shadows created by the flash could reveal textures, stains, or patterns that might not be visible under natural light.
2. Photographic Artifacts & Exposure Issues
• Long exposure times and the limitations of early photographic techniques could create visual distortions or enhance existing patterns in the image.
• Overexposed areas or shadows could unintentionally give the illusion of letters or symbols.
3. Blood & Wall Stains Reacting to Light
• Blood and organic matter can reflect or absorb light differently under artificial lighting.
• If there were smudges or splashes of blood on the wall, the flash could have made certain parts appear more distinct in the photograph.
4. Psychological Perception (Pareidolia)
• Humans are naturally inclined to see patterns in random data (known as pareidolia), which could explain why some people perceive “FM” while others do not.
• If the marks were not noted by police or witnesses at the time, it’s likely they were not distinct to the naked eye but became more noticeable in the photograph.

Er ... pareidolia ... er ... stupid ... er why did the coppers not look ... er ... er ... Ike's a twat ...er ... er ... er ... [****, I'm in danger of losing a point here] ... er ... er ... blood splatters!