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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could you run a poll for us to see whether anyone thinks someone should tell you?

Evasion detected.

[Lombro2]

A white bike was stolen in the rich neighborhood near my neighborhood. I was riding my white Browning up a hill there and the police stopped me on the hill no less. And I had to prove it was my bike by unlocking the combination lock on my chain lock, if that makes sense.

What would have happened to me if this was the stolen bike and I didn’t have a bike shop or a garage full of legitimately acquired bikes?

Would I have had to continue up the hill from a dead start?

[rjpalmer]

A white bike was stolen in the rich neighborhood near my neighborhood. I was riding my white Browning up a hill there and the police stopped me on the hill no less. And I had to prove it was my bike by unlocking the combination lock on my chain lock, if that makes sense.

What would have happened to me if this was the stolen bike and I didn’t have a bike shop or a garage full of legitimately acquired bikes?

Would I have had to continue up the hill from a dead start?

Unless you are confessing to having stolen the white bike from the rich kid (or are confessing to having purchased the white bike knowing it was stolen) and are also telling us that you then ran out and bought the Browning to have "plausible deniability" in case the police stopped you, how is this anecdote relevant?

It's merely a case of a person being stopped by the police during an investigation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A white bike was stolen in the rich neighborhood near my neighborhood. I was riding my white Browning up a hill there and the police stopped me on the hill no less. And I had to prove it was my bike by unlocking the combination lock on my chain lock, if that makes sense.

What would have happened to me if this was the stolen bike and I didn’t have a bike shop or a garage full of legitimately acquired bikes?

Would I have had to continue up the hill from a dead start?

I'm sorry, Lombro, I don't understand. If you'd been caught in possession of "the stolen bike", you would presumably have been arrested for theft. What difference would it have made if you'd had a bike shop or garage full of legitimate bikes?

I mean, if you'd been in possession of "the stolen bike" you presumably wouldn't have been able to unlock the combination lock to satisfy the police, so you'd have been scuppered.

But I'm not interested in stories about bikes. I want to know how being in possession of a genuine Victorian diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages would have given Mike Barrett plausible deniability in March 1992. Deniability of what? And to whom?

It’s like pulling teeth.

[rjpalmer]

What would have happened to me if this was the stolen bike and I didn’t have a bike shop or a garage full of legitimately acquired bikes?

I'm trying to be cordial, Lombro, but what you seem to be suggesting is that Barrett wanted to portray himself as the Kenneth Rendell of Liverpool---a dealer in old manuscripts and diaries. And to this end, Mike made 'legitimate' purchases of old diaries, manuscripts, etc. as a 'cover' for fencing a stolen manuscript.

Multiple problems with this idea.

If this was the case, then why did Barrett never portray himself as a dealer in 'legitimate' documents or diaries? What good is a cover if you don't use it?

Further, the red diary was a complete secret. Mike bought it in early 1992 and didn't tell anyone about it until he started confessing late 1995.

How can you possibly have 'plausible deniability' if you keep this 'legitimate' paper trail a secret until you start confessing??!?!

I'm sorry, Lombro, but it's not even remotely credible.

There was a bloke in Australia who sold on eBay a letter purporting to date to 1889 describing Kosminski chasing girls with scissors.

Part of his spiel was that he was a collector of autographs (many in the form of old letters) but this didn't make a heck of a lot of difference since he also claimed that he found the Kosminski letter accidently in a book that was being thrown out at his college. Indeed, it only raised the question why a collector and crime enthusiast would sell such an important artifact anonymously on eBay.

A search of the Australian's transactions on eBay showed only one purchase or sale involving an autograph or a letter, which rather deflated his claim of being a collector. The letter dated to 1889---the same year of the alleged 'Kosminski' letter.

I don't think this 'paper trail' of 'legitimate' purchases helped him. Do you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm trying to be cordial, Lombro, but what you seem to be suggesting is that Barrett wanted to portray himself as the Kenneth Rendell of Liverpool---a dealer in old manuscripts and diaries. And to this end, Mike made 'legitimate' purchases of old diaries, manuscripts, etc. as a 'cover' for fencing a stolen manuscript.

Multiple problems with this idea.

If this was the case, then why did Barrett never portray himself as a dealer in 'legitimate' documents or diaries? What good is a cover if you don't use it?

Further, the red diary was a complete secret. Mike bought it in early 1992 and didn't tell anyone about it until he started confessing late 1995.

How can you possibly have 'plausible deniability' if you keep this 'legitimate' paper trail a secret until you start confessing??!?!

I'm sorry, Lombro, but it's not even remotely credible.

There was a bloke in Australia who sold on eBay a letter purporting to date to 1889 describing Kosminski chasing girls with scissors.

Part of his spiel was that he was a collector of autographs (many in the form of old letters) but this didn't make a heck of a lot of difference since he also claimed that he found the Kosminski letter accidently in a book that was being thrown out at his college. Indeed, it only raised the question why a collector and crime enthusiast would sell such an important artifact anonymously on eBay.

A search of the Australian's transactions on eBay showed only one purchase or sale involving an autograph or a letter, which rather deflated his claim of being a collector. The letter dated to 1889---the same year of the alleged 'Kosminski' letter.

I don't think this 'paper trail' of 'legitimate' purchases helped him. Do you?

Hi Roger,

If Lombro was trying to portray Barrett as a dealer in old manuscripts and diaries that would be one thing, but he tells us that Barrett was only seeking a single diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages. His words were "he wanted a similar one for plausible deniability". That would never make him a "dealer".

So it can't be that. I still have no idea what form of "plausible deniability" Mike would have secured by the acquisition of a second diary which was only expected to be similar to the Ripper diary in the number of blank pages it contained (leaving aside Mike's alleged inability to count from one to seventeen) and the decade it was from. What possible use was that to Mike as the purported "fence" and, more to the point, what was it going to allow him to plausibly deny, and to whom he was he expecting to make the denial?

Of course, he wasn't a fence in any sense of the word. From the start he was planning to have his ownership of the Ripper diary broadcast to the world, and published in a book, through a literary agent, so he was never intending to deny anything about his connection to that diary.

It's all gibberish to me at this moment.

[Lombro2]

Socratic gibberish.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think you know.

I don't think you know that he knows. lol

[Lombro2]

How do you know that he doesn’t know that he knows?

[Abby Normal]

How do you know that he doesn’t know that he knows?

good question.

because i know that he dosnt know that he knows that he knows!

[Iconoclast]

... he tells us that Barrett was only seeking a single diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages. His words were "he wanted a similar one for plausible deniability". .

So think. Why might Mike Barrett on or around March 9, 1992, suddenly seek such a diary? Remove - for a moment - your hoaxer's rose-tinted, one-way vision spectacles. What reason might such a diary be useful to a man who may just have come into possession of (or - at least - just seen) a record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts?

I still have no idea what form of "plausible deniability" Mike would have secured by the acquisition of a second diary which was only expected to be similar to the Ripper diary in the number of blank pages it contained ...

So think. If you had just acquired something of possibly inestimable value and you were in a limited-income household, and if you knew that there was the very strong probability that the item was not strictly yours to own, what might you fear might happen at any time?

... What possible use was that to Mike as the purported "fence" and, more to the point, what was it going to allow him to plausibly deny, and to whom he was he expecting to make the denial?

I think the use of the word 'fence' is causing some confusion here. Mike Barrett was not a fence. He was not seeking to pass a stolen item on to someone else. He had an item which - quite the opposite - he very much wanted to keep for himself. So think. How would something that shares some of the item's characteristics prove useful to him under certain circumstances which he could have no way of knowing would not happen?

What might he be able to plausibly deny if he acquired a document which shared some of the characteristics of the item he had recently acquired (or hoped to acquire)? And think. To whom do you imagine he might want to make such a denial?

Of course, he wasn't a fence in any sense of the word.

Yes, so let's move on from that 'debate'. He wasn't a fence in the usual sense of the term. But that's not the key issue so let's stay focussed.

From the start he was planning to have his ownership of the Ripper diary broadcast to the world, and published in a book, through a literary agent, so he was never intending to deny anything about his connection to that diary.

So think. He's a human being of average intelligence. He hasn't got much money. But he has suddenly acquired what he thinks might be a priceless document. In those very early days, he wants to retain possession of it. He's not thinking long-term. He's not thinking about legal ramifications way down the line if a book is ever published. He's thinking about how to get the genie out of the lamp (Rupert Crew) and how to hold on to the lamp (Martin Earl). Think beyond your literalism. Think about Barrett as a human being not as an automaton. Think about what psychological drivers were at play in those earliest days.

It's all gibberish to me at this moment.

And yet it is not gibberish at all. You just need to start thinking without bias, presupposition, and - frankly - indolence.

[Observer]

The Maybrick Diary is a hoax and in all likelihood was written by Mike and Anne Barrett. A professional writer and conman and his wife are the last people who would write a hoax Diary.

Am I missing something here? This post doesn't make sense to me

[Iconoclast]

Am I missing something here? This post doesn't make sense to me

I assumed that he was being ironic or even sarcastic, Observer, otherwise it definitely contradicted itself, but - in fairness to him - it was a great deal better than his usual offerings.

[John Wheat]

I assumed that he was being ironic or even sarcastic, Observer, otherwise it definitely contradicted itself, but - in fairness to him - it was a great deal better than his usual offerings.

Says the man who so desperately wants the Diary to have been written by Maybrick. You have wasted years trying to convince people James Maybrick wrote the Dairy and all but a handful know the Diary is a fake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So think. Why might Mike Barrett on or around March 9, 1992, suddenly seek such a diary? Remove - for a moment - your hoaxer's rose-tinted, one-way vision spectacles. What reason might such a diary be useful to a man who may just have come into possession of (or - at least - just seen) a record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts?



So think. If you had just acquired something of possibly inestimable value and you were in a limited-income household, and if you knew that there was the very strong probability that the item was not strictly yours to own, what might you fear might happen at any time?



I think the use of the word 'fence' is causing some confusion here. Mike Barrett was not a fence. He was not seeking to pass a stolen item on to someone else. He had an item which - quite the opposite - he very much wanted to keep for himself. So think. How would something that shares some of the item's characteristics prove useful to him under certain circumstances which he could have no way of knowing would not happen?

What might he be able to plausibly deny if he acquired a document which shared some of the characteristics of the item he had recently acquired (or hoped to acquire)? And think. To whom do you imagine he might want to make such a denial?



Yes, so let's move on from that 'debate'. He wasn't a fence in the usual sense of the term. But that's not the key issue so let's stay focussed.



So think. He's a human being of average intelligence. He hasn't got much money. But he has suddenly acquired what he thinks might be a priceless document. In those very early days, he wants to retain possession of it. He's not thinking long-term. He's not thinking about legal ramifications way down the line if a book is ever published. He's thinking about how to get the genie out of the lamp (Rupert Crew) and how to hold on to the lamp (Martin Earl). Think beyond your literalism. Think about Barrett as a human being not as an automaton. Think about what psychological drivers were at play in those earliest days.



And yet it is not gibberish at all. You just need to start thinking without bias, presupposition, and - frankly - indolence.

So the answer you're providing to my question as to what Mike was intending to deny and to whom is:

"What might he be able to plausibly deny if he acquired a document which shared some of the characteristics of the item he had recently acquired (or hoped to acquire)? And think. To whom do you imagine he might want to make such a denial?"

It's the very question I'm asking! What was he wanting to use the genuine diary to plausibly deny and to whom? Why are you asking the same question back to me? The fact you're doing so suggests neither you or Lombro are able to articulate an answer for fear you'll fall into a deep hole of your own contradictions. I have thought about it myself, Ike, and can see that it's utter gibberish.