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

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course, fences never try to mix their stolen goods with legitimate ones, and thereby pretend innocence and ignorance so they can get away with fencing…

https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/c..._being_caught/

Hi Lombro, rather than trying to compare apples with pears, perhaps you can explain to us how any of the different scenarios discussed at the link you posted could be said to apply in any way to Mike Barrett in March 1992, and, in particular, why he needed a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to "pretend innocence and ignorance".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes indeed, RJ has proven to us all that he was bang on the nail - at least six or more (RJ’s original claim as I recall) statements in that affidavit have been confirmed or can at least be taken to be true. Hoorah for investigative journalism of the highest order! Only a true Barrett-believer could manage to avoid mentioning what the rest of us could not miss.

Now you’ll excuse me whilst I go back to work to pay for that red ink toner I now need for my printer …

When you talk about "what the rest of us could not miss", do you mean the fact that, obvious errors of dating and chronology aside, nothing material in Barrett's affidavit about how the forgery was done had been demonstrated to be false?

[Iconoclast]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

Brilliant post Lombro2.

It's this kind of logic which shines a light on some of the facile thinking which so frequently drives ripperology's desperate search for a solution - any solution.

[Lombro2]

I agree. Ditto.

But at least, it wasn't five pages of rubbish.

[John Wheat]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

Rubbish post.

[Iconoclast]

So, after all that, you've proved that elements of Michael Barrett's affidavits have been confirmed, just as Roger said. Thanks Ike

Yes indeed, RJ has proven to us all that he was bang on the nail - at least six or more (RJ’s original claim as I recall) statements in that affidavit have been confirmed or can at least be taken to be true. Hoorah for investigative journalism of the highest order! Only a true Barrett-believer could manage to avoid mentioning what the rest of us could not miss.

Now you’ll excuse me whilst I go back to work to pay for that red ink toner I now need for my printer …

[Lombro2]

And of course, fences never try to mix their stolen goods with legitimate ones, and thereby pretend innocence and ignorance so they can get away with fencing…

https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/c..._being_caught/

[Lombro2]

Caz and I are actively looking for the real Forger and the real Ripper and the real Mary Jane Kelly ( and the real Tom Mitchell). You’re welcome to join us instead of wasting your time with the Barretts and taking up Caz’s time and patience.

As for the Ripper, we’re eliminating guys like Maybrick because only Bivy the Chivers buy knives, as only forgers buy vintage diaries, not fences. Unlike deerstalkers, six inch knives are not ubiquitous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that interesting quote, Herlock. I must have missed it back in 2018 and couldn't find a reference to it in the archive.

It's strange how, many years ago, Anne was marketed as plausible and consistent, yet the more one looks, the more she contradicted herself.

Anne being 'chirpy' and 'friendly' with the woman who is attempting to publish the book she doesn't want published is also troubling.

I might have to rethink my assumptions about how willing she was to accommodate Barrett's schemes, but people can disguise their emotions.

No problem Roger

[rjpalmer]

As to Anne wanting to protect the diary from fire, after quite a lot of searching on Casebook, I've finally managed to track down the source of the story (and thanks to no one for helping!). Keith Skinner posted it in a thread entitled "Acquiring a Victorian Diary" on February 21, 2018. It was in a letter from Doreen Montgomery to a Sally Evemy dated April 22 ,1992. The key passage is this:

"I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman. I think they are genuine people and her only anxiety in asking her husband to place the Diary with the bank was because of the fact that they have had a couple of burglaries and she is also frightened of fire. Understandable."

Thanks for that interesting quote, Herlock. I must have missed it back in 2018 and couldn't find a reference to it in the archive.

It's strange how, many years ago, Anne was marketed as plausible and consistent, yet the more one looks, the more she contradicted herself.

Anne being 'chirpy' and 'friendly' with the woman who is attempting to publish the book she doesn't want published is also troubling.

I might have to rethink my assumptions about how willing she was to accommodate Barrett's schemes, but people can disguise their emotions.

[rjpalmer]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

Now if you can only discover that, two weeks before the Polly Nichols murder, Charles Lechmere tried to find a surgical scalpel in Oxford. "Must be at least 6" in length and capable of cutting a human throat."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Roger that!

Just to be clear, Lombro, no-one, as far as I am aware, is saying: "The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.". That's an argument you've made up so that you can ridicule it.

What is being said is that the Barretts had this modern creation in their possession in a way that is totally unexplained.

What is also being said is that the Barretts are the only people known to have been involved in an attempt to purchase a genuine diary from the decade of the Ripper murders containing blank pages in March 1992, shortly before the diary made its first known appearance.

The Barretts were also people who received money from the publication of a book about the diary.

So the conclusion is that the Barretts are obvious candidates for consideration as the forgers.

But if you can tell me someone else who is an obvious candidate behind this recent creation, I'm all ears.

[Lombro2]

And it’s that kind of logic that gulls people into thinking that Cross might have been guilty when anyone can see that he wasn’t.

Roger that!

[Lombro2]

Ike, you can throw that affidavit in the oven. I won’t fight you on the kitchen floor for it.

Mike said he thought his wife was having an affair with the man he was undermining? I can’t believe I believed a word of what he said then.

It reminds me of when I believed in the friend of Arthur Leigh Allen who tipped off the police, and then I found out Allen molested his daughter. I feel so Gullible—no pun intended.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The diary was clearly a recent creation so we need look no further than the Barretts.

Polly Nichols was clearly only recently dead so we need look no further than Charles Lechmere.

And it’s that kind of logic that gulls people into thinking that Cross might have been guilty when anyone can see that he wasn’t.