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

[Lombro2]

We’ll never know where it came from?

That’s a strong mark for the floorboard theory.

[Scott Nelson]

What about a plastered-over cupboard? Attic? Safe? Locked drawer in old desk? Buried in the ground? etc.... etc....

Or someone just grabbed an old photo-album to write in.

[Lombro2]

If someone grabbed an old photo album, it would have a Provenance. One that doesn’t involve things like pictures of donkeys, and non-existent auction tickets.

If it was in the wall or the floor, and was stolen and fenced, it wouldn’t.

[rjpalmer]

If someone grabbed an old photo album, it would have a Provenance.

The provenance was never competently checked until after the records were pulped.

I've always been leery of Kevin Whay's statement, too. No one wants their business, no matter how innocently, connected to a fraud, a scam, a counterfeit. That goes double if the business deals in antiques.

[Lombro2]

One missing auction ticket constitutes the proof for your provenance, along with Michael’s stories of a square compass and a picture of a donkey beside a grave, both also missing.

Talk about beating a dead donkey!

[rjpalmer]

That's the joy of being a diary supporter, Markus. Don't actually check Barrett's story until it's too late, and then shout, "see, no proof!!"

[Lombro2]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.

[Mike J. G.]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.

No, you're right, it was found beneath the floorboards in Riversdale, despite the fact that this has been shown to be incredibly unlikely by Chris Jones, chucked into a nonexistent skip outside and taken to a random branch of Liverpool John Moore's for verification from an unknown professor who has never stepped forward.

[rjpalmer]

Who'd go check on the square compass?

Why would I go check on your Provenance? I wouldn't waste my time and I guess neither do Barrett supporters waste their own time, even on their own theory. You can always go and say it's too late or it was trashed or given away and someone else trashed it. And just shift the onus of your own theory onto the detractors.

I have a strong sense that my comment sailed over the top of your head.

Shirley Harrison, to her credit, DID try to confirm whether Barrett had bought the photo album at the auction house as claimed in his secret, non-circulating affidavit. This is not my 'theory' it's what Barrett confessed as having happened and any competent researcher would attempt to verify it.

Unfortunately, Shriley had the auctioneers check the wrong dates, because Alan Gray had wrongly dated these events to 1990/91 based on his conversations with Barrett.

That might sound fine & dandy to you, but it is obvious from the affidavit that Barrett had gone to the auction after he received the 'red diary' in the mail and realized that it was too small & useless. That's the chronology he describes.

This gives us a hard date to work with--March 1992--because that's when Barrett had ordered/purchased the red diary as documented evidence proves.

And those dates--in March 1992--were never checked by the auction house. By the time the error in logic was noticed--after 2000 or so---O & L auctions had pulped all their records. There is also some doubt whether the lot would have been even adequately recorded for a small batch of miscellaneous items.

This has been gone over many times.

The bad news for you is that Barrett's auction ticket is just as substantial and real as Ed Lyons' timesheet for the week of 8 March 1992.

You can't show Lyons even knew Barrett and he plausibly denies it. You can't show Lyons found anything at Dodd's house. You can't show he was even working that week, having been laid off the week before. You sure as heck can't show he sold the Diary of Jack the Ripper for ten pounds or whatever other figure you want to imagine.

Ed Lyons' timecard is just as much of a phantom as Barrett's auction ticket.

Happy Hunting.

[Patrick Differ]

Why did Maybrick or whoever wrote this diary choose to say he took a room on Middlesex Street in the heart of the Jewish community?
There could be three reasons.
1. He actually did but does not say whether it was in Metro or City jurisdiction.
2. He knew it would possibly tie to his whereabouts between Mitre Square and Goulston Street.
3. He would be the man seen on Middlesex Street per George Hutchinsons testimony.

If he wanted to take ownership as the Ripper you might expect him to tie where he lived to these three events in writing?
1. I took a room on Middlesex Street..in the City side of Middlesex but murdered in Metro because I knew the Metro Boys would predictably stop at their jurisdiction.
2. ( the same as 1 basically ) It was a simple matter of disposing the organs and then the apron and blame the Jews.
I picked a place to live that was in easy walking distance of my own safety.
3. I would blend easily on Middlesex and the Sunday market. I saw the man that saw me with Kelly. He must be looking for me.

But there was nothing I found in the writings to tie in his lair at Middlesex Street. I may have missed it.

The only potential suspect that fits this scenario is Jacob Levy who lived at #36 Middlesex Street in City jurisdiction.

[Lombro2]

A great serial killer usually has good geo-spatial awareness and operates instinctively. He wouldn’t stop to think about it or analyze it.

So the author either is one or he knows that.