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

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,
Do you have the full quote where Barrett expressly said that half of the diary writing was in his hand and half was in his wife's?
Couldn’t the two-word quote you've provided of "fifty fifty" just mean that he was saying they were jointly responsible for creating the diary?

This was from Seth Linder's transcription which was a mix of transcription and summary from him; however, I have heard the tape (Linder lists it as Barrett-Gray, November 5, 1994, but I seem to recall it was the day before) and - if I recall correctly without actually checking back right at this instance - he does says 'it's fifty-fifty'.

Suddenly there is a breakthrough. MB shows him a letter he has written to Doreen Montgomery. AG is struck with the handwriting. ‘I’ve seen that Y somewhere else. I haven't seen that in the Ripper Diary, have I. By Christ I've tumbled you at last. You wrote the manuscript.
Now it will be easy for MB to prove.
MB: 'Doesn't anybody understand’.
A thought crosses AG's mind. ‘You said Anne did it. You're still saying it’s all her handwriting?
MB: ‘it’s 50/50’. It appears they did a bit each.
AG: 'And we can prove that?’.

Spoiler alert: Barrett never once proved it to anyone, ever.

Apologies for my early caution and slightly caustic expectation, but I am now awaiting the interpretation which informs us that Barrett was not saying that he and his wife had shared the handwriting credits equally (in much the same way as the scratches in the watch were not tens of years old in 1993 and the initials on the wall are not there, et cetera).

Can't wait for this one. My dear readers, don't say you didn't hear it here first ...

[Iconoclast]

At least, we know Anna did the study the right way--blind, not knowing it was the alleged diary of Jack the Ripper. And yet she predicted the author was a multiple personality like a serial killer.

I think we have to be very cautious on this point, Lombro2 - I don't think we can be 100% certain she didn't know who the author was supposed to be. We only know what we were told she knew. I'm not casting aspersions here - I'm simply noting that we don't know for certain what Anna Koren had been told before she saw the scrapbook.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This was from Seth Linder's transcription which was a mix of transcription and summary from him; however, I have heard the tape (Linder lists it as Barrett-Gray, November 5, 1994, but I seem to recall it was the day before) and - if I recall correctly without actually checking back right at this instance - he does says 'it's fifty-fifty'.

Suddenly there is a breakthrough. MB shows him a letter he has written to Doreen Montgomery. AG is struck with the handwriting. ‘I’ve seen that Y somewhere else. I haven't seen that in the Ripper Diary, have I. By Christ I've tumbled you at last. You wrote the manuscript.
Now it will be easy for MB to prove.
MB: 'Doesn't anybody understand’.
A thought crosses AG's mind. ‘You said Anne did it. You're still saying it’s all her handwriting?
MB: ‘it’s 50/50’. It appears they did a bit each.
AG: 'And we can prove that?’.

Spoiler alert: Barrett never once proved it to anyone, ever.

Apologies for my early caution and slightly caustic expectation, but I am now awaiting the interpretation which informs us that Barrett was not saying that he and his wife had shared the handwriting credits equally (in much the same way as the scratches in the watch were not tens of years old in 1993 and the initials on the wall are not there, et cetera).

Can't wait for this one. My dear readers, don't say you didn't hear it here first ...

But, Ike, surely there's an obvious alternative explanation for that exchange?

Gray says "You wrote the manuscript" to which Barrett replies, "Doesn't anyone understand, it's 50/50".

Perhaps Gray interrupted but Barrett might simply have continued on with what he'd already started to say, which was that the diary was a joint effort.

Is the recording available to listen to, please?

[Iconoclast]

But, Ike, surely there's an obvious alternative explanation for that exchange?
Gray says "You wrote the manuscript" to which Barrett replies, "Doesn't anyone understand, it's 50/50".
Perhaps Gray interrupted but Barrett might simply have continued on with what he'd already started to say, which was that the diary was a joint effort.
Is the recording available to listen to, please?

Granted, it reads a lot less revealingly now that you've skipped the crucial line: ' ‘You said Anne did it. You're still saying it’s all her handwriting?'

Check it out, Maybrick sticky:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/828407-alan-gray-michael-barrett-cassette-recordings-1994-1996

It's very clear that Barrett has replied to Gray without thinking, Gray thus asks Barrett an awkward question, and Barrett realises he's cocked-up so he changes the story's tack (as ever he did), making the handwriting an equal effort between the two. Remember, he's got Alan Gray telling himself that Barrett is the author of the scrapbook text and Barrett jumps too quickly on what he thinks is an open goal when - in reality - he's facing a very uncomfortable own goal. Gray states that Barrett wrote the manuscript and Barrett happily concurs before realising his mistake and immediately retracting and in the process showing himself to be the liar that he unquestionably was.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock -

Go to the 4 November tape

Is it just me, or do we hear the following exchange starting at 24:58?

Alan G: So, who's handwriting is it?

Mike B: That's the whole point.

AG: Who's handwriting is it?

MB: Anne's.

Alan G: Exactly...

Cheers, RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

Granted, it reads a lot less revealingly now that you've skipped the crucial line: ' ‘You said Anne did it. You're still saying it’s all her handwriting?'

Check it out, Maybrick sticky:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/828407-alan-gray-michael-barrett-cassette-recordings-1994-1996

It's very clear that Barrett has replied to Gray without thinking, Gray thus asks Barrett an awkward question, and Barrett realises he's cocked-up so he changes the story's tack (as ever he did), making the handwriting an equal effort between the two. Remember, he's got Alan Gray telling himself that Barrett is the author of the scrapbook text and Barrett jumps too quickly on what he thinks is an open goal when - in reality - he's facing a very uncomfortable own goal. Gray states that Barrett wrote the manuscript and Barrett happily concurs before realising his mistake and immediately retracting and in the process showing himself to be the liar that he unquestionably was.

Is this a wind-up Ike?

I've just listened to all 47 minutes of the recording of November 4, 1994 which is the one you identified in #466 as being the correct one. The exchange in question is definitely not on there.

However, at 23:58, Gray asks Barrett whose handwriting was in the diary and Mike says it's Anne's. Gray then asks him "How did she do the handwriting?" to which Barrett replies: "Easy. She just wrote very slow on some occasions".

I then tried to listen to the recording of November 5, 1994, which is the one you tell me Seth Linder identified, but it's totally inaudible. It sounds like it’s recorded at the wrong speed so I'm wondering how you managed to listen to this yourself. Are you absolutely sure you've heard it? Is there another version or maybe you're misrememberiing?

I know that in the written extract you provided, Gray is recorded by Seth Linder as having said "You're still saying it's all her handwriting". But, in the recording I heard, Barrett doesn't always listen properly to what Gray is saying. If Gray was overspeaking, Barrett could easily have been continuing with his original answer, not responding to what Gray was saying. That's the problem. That's why I need to hear the original recording but, it seems, I can't. If you insist it's on one of those tapes at the link you've provided, could you please identify it for me?

[Iconoclast]

I've just listened to all 47 minutes of the recording of November 4, 1994 which is the one you identified in #466 as being the correct one. The exchange in question is definitely not on there.
However, at 23:58, Gray asks Barrett whose handwriting was in the diary and Mike says it's Anne's. Gray then asks him "How did she do the handwriting?" to which Barrett replies: "Easy. She just wrote very slow on some occasions".

This is no wind-up, but it is too late in the evening to resolve it. Linder dated it as November 5 but I had recalled it as November 4. On the latter tape at 23:58, I can only hear Barrett telling Gray that his (Barrett's) father had passed away the night before?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

Go to the 4 November tape

Is it just me, or do we hear the following exchange starting at 24:58?

Alan G: So, who's handwriting is it?

Mike B: That's the whole point.

AG: Who's handwriting is it?

MB: Anne's.

Alan G: Exactly...

Cheers, RP

Yes, you are absolutely right Roger. I meant to type 24:58 earlier, not 23:58. And then a minute or two later, Gray asks how she did the handwriting and Barrett says, "Easy. She just wrote slow on some occasions".

All entirely consistent with Barrett saying his wife wrote the diary on her own

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is no wind-up, but it is too late in the evening to resolve it. Linder dated it as November 5 but I had recalled it as November 4. On the latter tape at 23:58, I can only hear Barrett telling Gray that his (Barrett's) father had passed away the night before?

Apologies, Ike, I mis-typed. That should have been from 24:58 on the tape.

I've persevered with the inaudible recording of 5th November. At 50 minutes, Gray appears to be typing out a statement on Barrett's behalf. You can hear the banging of the typewriter keys. He reads out one line which can, miraculously, just about be heard. It says: "My wife, Anne, wrote the Jack the Ripper diary, the actual manuscript".

How is that in any way consistent with Barrett saying, on the very same day according to Linder, that the handwriting was fifty-fifty? It makes no sense, Ike. He couldn't have been saying that he wrote half of the manuscript in view of what is in the statement. It must be a misunderstanding of the words "fifty fifty" by Seth Linder.

[Lombro2]

So was she disguising her hand or was she schizoid like a serial killer with multiple handwriting like a serial killer?

Well, I think the latter makes more sense. I think Anna Koren was right about the "multiple" and she plucked it out of the air without prior knowledge. Feldman would have to be an idiot to tell the Israeli graphologist that this was the diary of a businessman (Gentile or Jew?) who was Jack the Ripper if he didn't want to get a false positive for forgery.

[Lombro2]

I've done a lot of debunking in the course of doing research but I never went into things in order to debunk. Boy, have I been missing out! It's actually quite enjoyable and much easier. You hardly have to do any research at all. Just peruse what's already there and pick the choicest cherries of nonsense.

Now I can enjoy hoaxes and hoaxers like a real debunker.... MB--the gift that keeps on giving.

Wow! This winter is just going to fly!

[Iconoclast]

I've just listened to all 47 minutes of the recording of November 4, 1994 which is the one you identified in #466 as being the correct one. The exchange in question is definitely not on there.

I'm about to try to unravel where the error is here and it's probably going to take me some time but - before I start - can I just remind my dear readers that what I actually said was:

This was from Seth Linder's transcription which was a mix of transcription and summary from him; however, I have heard the tape (Linder lists it as Barrett-Gray, November 5, 1994, but I seem to recall it was the day before) ...

I'm not denying for a moment that I thought (and still think it may have been) the recording on November 4, but - by the same token - I did not 'identify' it as the correct one; I simply stated that I recalled it being the November 4 tape.

This is not a huge point but points like this can later be used against you here on the Casebook if they are not clarified immediately.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm about to try to unravel where the error is here and it's probably going to take me some time but - before I start - can I just remind my dear readers that what I actually said was:



I'm not denying for a moment that I thought (and still think it may have been) the recording on November 4, but - by the same token - I did not 'identify' it as the correct one; I simply stated that I recalled it being the November 4 tape.

This is not a huge point but points like this can later be used against you here on the Casebook if they are not clarified immediately.

Yes, but Ike, when I asked you if the recording was available, all you did was give me a link to 15 audio recordings without further comment and without identifying the one I should be listening to, let alone the time stamp. The only information I had to go on was your belief that it was November 4th. So that's the one I listened to. What else was I supposed to do?

I had to listen to the entire 47 minute recording to discover it wasn't there. But I've now also listened to the entire inaudible one-and-a-half-hour recording on November 5th and I can't hear it in there either. So where is it? If Seth Linder thought he did hear this being said, it makes me wonder if he misheard because I can't see how it's possible to get an accurate transcript from that recording.

You do also rely quite a lot on your memory for quotes which often seem to turn out to be wrong. Might it not be a good idea to check your facts before posting? Over the years I’ve made this mistakes numerous times when I’ve assumed that I’m remembering correctly leading me to not bother checking.

Nothing really makes sense of the Gray/Barrett exchange, especially because I can't see how a letter "Y" written by Barrett could have been confused by Gray with a letter in the diary. Barrett's child-like handwriting that I've seen doesn't look anything like the diary handwriting. Do you see the problem?

And have you actually ever heard this exchange yourself or have you always been relying on Seth Linder's summary transcription of it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is no wind-up, but it is too late in the evening to resolve it. Linder dated it as November 5 but I had recalled it as November 4. On the latter tape at 23:58, I can only hear Barrett telling Gray that his (Barrett's) father had passed away the night before?

Can we just stick with the handwriting point please, Ike? What's Barrett's father got to do with that?

I've persevered with the inaudible recording of 5th November. At 50 minutes, Gray appears to be typing out a statement on Barrett's behalf. You can hear the banging of the typewriter keys. He reads out one line which can, miraculously, just about be heard. It says: "My wife, Anne, wrote the Jack the Ripper diary, the actual manuscript".

How is that in any way consistent with Barrett saying, on the very same day according to Linder, that the handwriting was fifty-fifty? It makes no sense, Ike. He couldn't have been saying that he wrote half of the manuscript in view of what is in the statement. It must be a misunderstanding of the words "fifty fifty" by Seth Linder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies. I've done it again. I'm going to have to start posting directly rather than typing into Pages and then cutting and pasting because I've just re-posted something I'd already posted after I'd had to change it. I was thrown a little by Ike's reference to Barretts father until I realised that I'd given the wrong time stamp.

A lesson to me to not post whilst doing other things