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

[rjpalmer]

Speaking of timelines,

we are informed by the Inside Story authors that Anne Graham was added to the Rupert Crew collaboration agreement on 6 May 1992. She was now part of the team.

It was less than two weeks later, 18 May 1992, that she pays for the maroon diary, handing Barrett a cheque for 25 quid.

It is therefore rather surprising that Anne didn't alert Shirley Harrison to Mike's expensive research acquisition. One would think Anne would have wanted the expenditure on record so she could claim it as a business expense now that she was part of the team.

It must have slipped her mind.

And it slipped Barrett's mind, too. One of the first things Shirley did on Mike's arrival in London was to yard him over to the British Museum to see if the diary looked "legit." What a perfect opportunity to tell Shirley about his own research into what Victorian diaries looked like. Mike said nothing.

But I gather than no one still argues that the maroon diary was an innocent purchase. There seems to be a general agreement that it was acquired for nefarious reasons.

RP

[caz]

Hi Roger,

According to information obtained from Martin Earl, as posted by Caz in 2020, a customer of Earl's could only return an item if was "not as described". This means that if an item was accurately described but was "useless" to the customer for any reason, including for the purposes of forgery, it could not be returned at any time and had to be paid for.

The premise of Lombro's post that if Anne was "in on the forgery" she "would have known" about the red diary is also questionable. Even if she'd been the mastermind behind the whole operation, she could still have delegated the task of getting a Victorian diary to her husband but she might not have been the mastermind. Her only role might have been to help Mike out by writing the text of the diary in the old photograph album. In which case, it is entirely possible that the first time she knew about the red diary was in May 1992 when Mike asked her to pay for it.

'...she could still have delegated the task of getting a Victorian diary to her husband...'

Yes, and we all know how well that went, assuming you are including the red diary fiasco, don't we?

It must be a bit of a lark, sorting out the role play and moving the Barrett chess pieces around the board. There ought to be a board game in it - or is it already a bored game?

Anne is supposed to have been able to manipulate Mike throughout their marriage when it suits the narrative. At least, it suited Anne's narrative to say this when she was gamely trying to explain her actions in giving Mike the diary via Tony Devereux. Ironically, it also suits Roger Palmer's narrative to believe Anne about the manipulation bit but nothing else.

Are we really meant to believe that she would have left Mike "Blabbermouth" Barrett entirely to his own devices if he was sourcing the raw materials for Maybrick's diary, and would never once have given a thought to how he had gone about it? If he was secretive with her about the process or any of the details, would she not have wondered why? How could they have hoped to keep one another's stories straight for when the million and one questions were inevitably fired in their direction?

If Anne had been manipulating Mike all the way, right up to 9th March 1992, when he called Doreen to say he had the diary and their lives were changed forever, how did she suddenly become a lump of quivering jelly when she'd have needed her manipulative powers over Mike more than ever before?

Could you two gents not sort yourselves out via private message before coming back here with more of this paint-by-numbers approach to your two prime suspects?

It would be a very different kettle of fish if Anne was not involved from the start and Mike brought the diary home one day, determined to do something with it. Anne could do little to stop him going his own way in that event. She could only 'manipulate' Mike so far in this situation, and after that 'on his own head be it' if he'd got himself into something dodgy - which might explain the blazing row they had over the diary in front of Caroline. Failing to destroy it or curb Mike's enthusiasm, I can understand why she'd have been unhappy about it being in their house a moment longer than necessary in those early days. Did she persuade Mike to take it to the bank - literally, not figuratively - and then come up with the fire and theft line for Doreen, because she could hardly voice her suspicions that it may already have been stolen and too hot to handle? What doesn't get much attention is why the Barretts would have wanted it kept in the bank at all, if they had just created it out of an innocent old photo album and nobody local knew the first thing about it.

[caz]

For starters, the arithmetic--if one can even call it that--is wrong.

Barrett asked for a minimum of twenty blank pages--the pre-existing diary you believe he had examined down the boozer had--what is it?--63 handwritten pages with others. So, if this was Mike's motivation, why didn't he ask for a minimum of 63 blank pages (or 32 pages blank on each side) or an approximation thereof?

That's the first obvious inconsistency.

Not really. It's more of a problem for Barrett believers. A random practical joker, wanting to write Jack the Ripper's diary, would not have needed anything like 32 pages blank on each side to play their funny little game. They'd have been blessed to find one like the scrapbook. You cut your garment according to your cloth. At least 20 pages [or 40 sides] would have satisfied anyone with fakery in mind. Asking for a diary, with as many unused pages as the scrapbook contained used ones, was neither necessary nor likely to be successful.

Only if Mike needed something with at least enough consecutive pages that were blank on both sides, to accommodate the typescript that was supposedly on his word processor, would he have sought the same, or similar number of unused pages as were used for the diary in the scrapbook. He'd also have needed to estimate the number based on transferring the text smoothly by hand into whatever was located.

All for now. It's cocktail hour again.

[rjpalmer]

Not really. It's more of a problem for Barrett believers. A random practical joker, wanting to write Jack the Ripper's diary, would not have needed anything like 32 pages blank on each side to play their funny little game. They'd have been blessed to find one like the scrapbook. You cut your garment according to your cloth. At least 20 pages [or 40 sides] would have satisfied anyone with fakery in mind. Asking for a diary, with as many unused pages as the scrapbook contained used ones, was neither necessary nor likely to be successful.

This constant goalpost boogie is a sight to behold.

The above would work for a diary that wasn't yet written or was written but could obviously be adapted depending on what raw materials were obtained. You were instead referring to a diary that already existed (though there is no evidence for it) and whose pages could be counted.

It's interesting that when you present your dubious theory that Mike suspected Eddie was peddling a fake, you are perfectly fine with the hoaxer requesting a minimum of twenty blank pages.

But when the hoaxer becomes Mike (who we know REALLY DID request a diary with a minimum of twenty blank pages) you place all sorts of hurdles in his path, implying how this couldn't have worked or would be illogical, such as this from earlier in the week:

"When Mike put in his request, asking for at least 20 blank pages, was he expecting those pages to be blank on both sides? If so, that would have amounted to at least 40 sides of paper that could be written on. Would he have needed to ask for that many, if he had a prepared typescript of the diary and knew the exact number of A4 sheets used?"

We cannot read Barrett's mind (as much as you enjoy reading Anne's and then accusing me of the same) so we cannot know what he meant by 20 blank pages.

We also only know the length of the typescript that was later presented to Harrison and Montgomery.

Obviously, if a draft existed in early March 1992, it could have been an entirely different length than what was handed over, which anyway was supposed to be an accurate transcript.

I'm surprise you find this simple concept so difficult to work out.

And I notice you didn't explain why Barrett needed to OBTAIN the bloody thing if his only motive was to see if it could be obtained.

[rjpalmer]

"I'm surprise you find this simple concept so difficult to work out."

But then, you have worked it out, haven't you?

You understand the concept well enough when Ed Lyons is the suspected hoaxer--it just suddenly becomes murky and unfathomable when anyone suggests Barrett is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Crikey, Herlock,

I only used the word 'originally' because I was quoting from a post of yours which you had addressed to Ike way back in this thread, and I didn't know if you had gone over the same ground since. I have a life and am struggling to read all the posts in order, which I think I mentioned. You do tend to repeat your arguments and questions over and over, when the kiddies in your class have insolently failed to speak up or pay you all the attention you think you so richly deserve. Get over yourself. I'm 71, not 7!

Another rummage in my timeline, using a different search, has given me the information that it wasn't Harris who told Feldman about the red diary after all, it was your old friend and serial liar, Michael Barrett, in late June 1995. He told Feldman that Anne had bought a Victorian diary in 1992 and he had the receipt for it. Feldman asked Anne about it and she said yes, she had bought a Victorian pocket diary and still had it. My question to self would be what took Mike so long, if he considered this to be strong evidence in support of his forgery claims. At least the red diary investigation was taken up after that revelation, which came five months after Mike's affidavit.

I now have no idea what Alan Gray and Melvin Harris had been doing since the January, assuming Harris would have asked Gray to keep him fully informed. It now appears that Harris wasn't the one who 'enabled' the red diary to be investigated. Fannying about, picking his nose, biting his nails, scratching his nuts, writing condescending letters to all and sundry? Possibly all at once, but not, apparently, even advising Gray, a professional investigator, to look into this red diary business, which, according to the affidavit, was a crucial piece of hard evidence, by then in Anne's possession, claimed by Mike to be an earlier attempt to source the raw materials for Maybrick's diary. So much criticism is directed at Feldman, Shirley and their various researchers, for not moving quickly enough [despite not knowing about the affidavit for another two years], but Gray and Harris - who both had axes to grind and vested interests in nailing and exposing the alleged forgers at the earliest opportunity - always seem to get free passes for sitting on their arses. Funny that. What is the excuse for them not doing their own investigations, if time was of the essence before evidence disappeared into office shredders? If it's the fact that torture is against the law, and if Mike steadfastly refused to show a living soul his receipt for the red diary or his famous ticket for the black one, what can you do?

Bottom line: no researcher, of any persuasion, no matter how intrepid, resourceful, well funded and time rich, can dig up evidence from nowhere. If it doesn't exist, and may never have existed, one is snookered, to put it politely.

Considering that Mike seemed so keen to prove the diary was a forgery created by himself and his wife, do you not wonder why he had so little to say about how he had set about obtaining the red diary, when claiming it was intended for faking Maybrick's? D'you think he'd have made do with it if only it had not been 'very small' when it arrived? No, me neither. Why was he 'flustered' in April 1999 and unable to come up with one of his usual quips? If he recalled nothing about an early attempt to obtain a diary for 'the' diary, which produced one for two years after Maybrick's death, was it because, like you, he knew this diary was of no importance? He evidently didn't think it might be important, back in January 1995, to mention the fact that he had asked for a diary with a number of blank pages. It would have been one tiny pearl of truth in an ocean polluted by ten types of crap. But no - not important enough.

But you are right about the fact that Mike did indeed cunningly think to incorporate the entirely innocent acquisition of the very small red diary into his forgery story, and for pretty obvious reasons. He wanted something that would stick like sh*t to a blanket in the minds of people who would not otherwise have trusted a single syllable escaping from his lips; people who had been itching since 1993 for something to justify and solidify their suspicions about the Barretts. Where he went badly wrong was to introduce the late Tony Devereux, after initially claiming he'd had nothing to do with it, and then sandwich the poor sod, while still alive, between the sourdough of the raw materials and the writing, and his fatal heart attack. Why did Mike jump on Tony's grave in January 1995 after letting him rest in June 1994? If he was smarting about Anne's claim to have given the diary to Tony, was it really worth the mucking fuddle he made of the entire forgery chronology, in order to try and get a reaction out of her when she saw Tony's name being dragged through the dirt? It would be consistent with Mike's increasingly obsessive need for contact with his wife and child, and he knew Anne would instantly be able to pick apart every dating error, misdirection, lie and half-truth anyway. What did Mike want out of the affidavit? Does it read like he was genuinely trying to clear his own guilty conscience as a fraudster? How was he going to achieve that if Anne was the intended recipient? Or was this much more about his broken relationship with her than the diary? Was he hoping that Anne would care about the kind of people who would suck up all his lies like mother's milk and spew them out again as a coherent narrative after a whole lot of shakin'? Twist and shout.

Some hope. Anne didn't care. She doesn't care. What would be the point? She's in a no-win situation today. If Martin Fido's observation that she would go off into girlish giggling when she was nervous or wanted to change the subject was after July 1994, it was not surprising if she was finding it tough to have to remember every little thing she had already said, true or not, in the face of so much suspicion, when people were just waiting for her to contradict herself again, slip up - or trip over. How could anyone blame her for not wanting to revisit those days and be put through it all again like a performing seal? It's not even about the truth. If she lied about the diary coming from the Graham family, it doesn't follow that she must have helped to fake it in the first few days of April 1992. But that's all we ever hear. If Anne did decide to open up one day, the same people would always find clues in whatever she said, to argue that she was lying because of her involvement in creating a hoax. You know it. Everybody knows it. And it's not as if there was never an alternative, but no Barrett hoax conspiracy theorist is going to take off their trusty tin foil hat and swap it for a sparky Battlecrease bonnet, to sift through all the available evidence again from the beginning: 9th March 1992.

I still don't see what purpose the word "originally" served in your post. Why didn't you just say: "This one was addressed to Ike, and I don't know if it has been dealt with in posts I have yet to catch up with"? Why also then waste your energy telling me that you're not permanently glued to this site waiting to pounce on new posts when I never suggested for one second that you were?

Anyway, let's not worry with silly things like that.

Thank you for your information that it wasn't Harris who told Feldman about the red diary. Would you be interested to know who my source was for the idea it was Harris?

It was you!

For in your "housekeeping" post dated September 4th, 2000 (#6100 in the "One Incontrovertible" thread), you posted:

"Keith first heard about the red diary on 20th July 1995, at Baker Street, during a recorded conversation with Mike, Feldman and Martin Howells. Mike mentions it at one point and nobody seems to know what he's talking about. He accuses Feldman of knowing about it and wants him to admit it. Feldman says Melvin Harris was told that Mike had a receipt proving Anne bought a Victorian diary. Feldman asks Mike why he told Melvin that the diary was bought in 1992 for £25. Feldman says it's a little diary dated 1891. He asks Mike why he implied to Melvin that the receipt for it proved Anne wrote the diary."

You then added:

"It would appear that Feldman got his information from Melvin Harris, who already knew the red diary was for the year 1891 and was not bought until 1992."

Like much of the information in your "housekeeping" posts, this would appear to not be entirely accurate. I've also found a transcript of a note of Keith Skinner's, dated July 5th 1995, (posted by Ike on June 28th 2023 in #560 of the "Who were they?" thread) in which Keith recorded:

"PF [Paul Feldman] phoned and asked me to make a note that last week, before he went to Liverpool, Mike Barrett had phoned saying Ann had bought a Victorian diary in 1991 (!) for which he (Barrett), had the receipt. PF asked Anne about it - and Anne said, yes, she had bought a Victorian pocket diary - and still has it."

I assume this is the source for what you've posted today about Feldman having been told about the red diary by Michael Barrett in late June 1995.

A number of questions arise, however, which you may wish to answer:

1. If Feldman already knew about the 1891 diary from Mike in late June 1995, and told Keith Skinner about it on 5th July 1995, why is it that when Mike mentioned it during the meeting on 20th July 1995, "nobody seems to know what he's talking about"?

2. If all Mike had told Feldman in late June 1995 was that the 1891 diary had been purchased in 1991, how was Feldman able to say that it had been purchased in 1992 unless Melvin Harris had, in fact, already told him this?

3. If all that Feldman had been told about the diary as of 5th July 1995 was as set out in Keith's note, how was Feldman aware that the 1891 diary had been purchased for £25unless Melvin Harris had already told him this?

4. If Harris hadn't told Feldman anything about the 1891 diary, including that the receipt proved that Anne wrote the diary, why did Feldman say during the meeting that he had?

5. If Keith was told about the 1891 diary by Feldman on 5th July 1995, why is it that you posted that: "Keith first heard about the red diary on 20th July 1995"?

Another interesting issue arises in that Anne appears to have been given advance warning by Feldman prior to 5th July 1995, that the news of the 1891 diary was out in the open so she had plenty of time to think about what to say prior to Keith calling her on 22nd August 1995. Yet, she only thought to look through he cheque stubs for the first time on 22nd August.

I await, with interest, your confirmation about what Melvin Harris did or did not say to Paul Feldman about the red diary but, for the benefit of our mutual friend, Ike, would you mind confirming that you agree that Harris was under no obligation or duty to share or circulate Mike's January 1995 affidavit to anyone prior to it becoming public in 1997, assuming he'd been given a copy (which has not been established)? Would you also agree that he might even have regarded himself unable to circulate a legal document without the permission and consent of its author?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would have been really helpful, John, if you could have included some punctuation, brushed up your grammar and learned how to spell the names of the main characters since 1992.

Let me help:

'Yes, of course Barrett knew what it was. After all, he and Anne penned it.'

Have you warmly embraced one of Mike's less popular claims, that the handwriting was "fifty-fifty"?

Love,

Caz
X

I'm literally astonished, Caz, that you've asked John about Mike's supposed "fifty-fifty" comment bearing in mind that you haven't answered the critical questions I asked you about the relevant tape recording containing this supposed comment as long ago as 15th April of this year in my #767.

For convenience, I'll repeat the passage of my post containing those questions (omitting my transcript of the relevant exchange between 18:52 and 20:56 and my initial, important question to you: "Have you been listening to the tape of 6th November 1994, as posted on Casebook?").

This is what I said, with the important questions in bold:

"The key thing for me is that at 19:41 one of the men (obviously Gray) says "you wrote that, she wrote the manuscript" having apparently corrected himself after having said "you wrote the manuscript". This is clear as a bell on the tape but isn't reflected by Seth Linder in your book or in the transcript you've just posted and I wonder why not. As I've noted, this sentence concludes at 19:44 before we hear someone going "ah ah ah ah ah" at 19:52before a very faint possible "fifty fifty". I've listened to the intervening 8 second period over and over and, while it's inaudible, it certainly doesn't sound like Gray or anyone is saying anything that sounds like "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting." Are you saying, Caz, that you can hear this on the recording, or have you simply repeated what Seth Linder thought he could hear? I challenge anyone reading this to listen to the tape themselves to see if what is said in that 8 second gap sounds anything like what you've claimed.

Furthermore, I rather agree with Ike over in the other Hoax thread when he says that it's not the same person who says "ah ah ah ah ah" as the person who possibly says "fifty fifty". And if it's Gray saying "ah ah ah ah ah" he must be responding to something that Mike has just said in the 8 second gap between 19:44 and 19:52. This makes it even more certain that Gray hadn't just delivered a monologue sentence saying "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting". It seems to me like Seth Linder was filling in the gaps to try and make sense of the inaudible parts of the tape. But I really want to know what you are hearing, Caz. Please confirm what you can actually hear.

Just looking at the wider context. I couldn't hear the name of Dorothy Wright being mentioned until Mike starts telling his story of writing for Celebrity at around the 21 minute mark. Again, I wonder if Seth Linder got confused when he said at page 152 of your book that Gray saw the name Dorothy Wright on the tape of an interview. [I haven't put it in the transcript but I think I can hear the word "blank" being said shortly before 18:52 which could be a reference to a cassette tape.] According to Seth Linder Gray says "I've seen that Y somewhere else". I don't want to say that's wrong, although to me, if anything, it sounds like Gray says "I've seen that line before". Admittedly that would be a bit of a strange thing to say. As I've noted, at 19:06 it sounds like Gray asks Barrett who wrote the manuscript and, while I cannot be certain, I do feel that I can hear the name Anne then being mentioned.

We can see that Mike then goes on to tell a similar story about the origins of the diary that he was to tell in April 1999. There is some consistency for you.

But if we assume that Mike was saying "fifty fifty" there is no way in my view that he can be said to be saying this in response to a statement from Gray: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's her handwriting". As I've said, the only thing I can hear that's anything like this is "you wrote that, she wrote the manuscript". It's not clear to me what "that" could be but it seems that Gray has seen some handwriting which he thinks is Mike's and then accuses him of writing the manuscript to which Mike possibly says that Anne wrote the manuscript. Whatever is going on it's not anything like as clear as Seth Linder and now you are portraying it. There is no basis, in my opinion, to say that Mike was claiming that he and Anne jointly wrote the manuscript, fifty fifty. On the basis of what I can hear on the tape with my own ears it's simply not possible to say that this is what is happening.

Now it's possible that a better transcript can be prepared and I invite anyone, especially Ike, to collaborate with me in producing a definitive one of this passage. But if you, Caz, have a better copy of the tape in which you can hear more than is possible to discern on the Casebook version can you please provide it to Casebook? If we are creating a "record" as you say we are, we surely need to be accurate and have the best possible recording available."

I stand by what I said at the outset to Ike on this issue which is that if Mike did say "fifty fifty", he didn't as you have put it, say that the handwriting was fifty fifty. Even you don't quote him as having said that. What I suspect he was saying was that the diary was created fifty percent by him and fifty percent by Anne. Certainly, nothing that I can hear on the tape contradicts that. If you have any additional evidence that Mike was specifically talking about the handwriting when he said "fifty fifty" (if he did say that), please post it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike could simply have been wanting to see what a Victorian diary looked like if he was dead curious but initially suspicious - as anyone sane would be - about the one signed by Jack the Ripper and dated 1889 after the final entry. An 1891 diary was not too far out in that context, and would be enough to satisfy his curiosity, so he went ahead and asked for it to be sent to him. His suspicions, that some local scally was having a laugh at his expense, could be tested to some extent by asking for a minimum number of blank pages in his Victorian diary to see what was possible. Two birds with one stone: what does a typical Victorian diary look like? Are there many around these days that are unused or partly used?

Wear the Battlecrease bonnet when thinking this one through. It might even suit you. Just don't answer the door to the postman.

Job done.

Next.

Thank you, Caz, for your explanation as to why Mike wanted a Victorian diary with blank pages. I'm saddened to see that it doesn't involve plausible deniability. Boy, what a kick in the teeth for Lombro and Ike. Those poor guys have been hung out to dry on a rope of their own gibberish.

I should say that your explanation is deficient on its face in that you've omitted to explain why Mike specifically asked for a diary from the period 1880 to 1890 bearing in mind that, according to you, the Ripper diary he'd been given by Eddie Lyons was undated (other than in the text which anyone could have written at any time0 and, while it looked old, could have been manufactured any time before 9th March 1992, at least as far as Mike would have been able to tell from looking at it. So what was the purpose of the 1880 to 1890 request? I wouldn't want you to be guilty of an incomplete explanation.

As for what you have said, a few obvious questions do arise:

1. If Mike was concerned that "some local scally was having a laugh at his expense" and wanted to know "how many unused or party used Victorian diaries there were these days",why did he contact a rare and second hand bookdealers in Oxford to put his mind at rest? Did he think that Oxford would be the only place from which a Scouse scally could possibly have sourced a Victorian diary for their forgery? Or he think that Martin Earl had access to every single existing Victorian diary in the country, including those sold in antique shops, auction houses and though classified ads, not to mention on the black market? And did he think all this, even though, as stated above, the Ripper diary he'd been shown could have been manufactured in the 20th century and he had no way of knowing this?

2. Why did Mike specifically ask for a minimum of 20 blank pages?

3. If Mike was concerned that "some local scally was having a laugh at his expense" by creating a fake Ripper diary and he managed, through Martin Earl, to source a diary from the 1880s with, say, 25 blank pages, how would this have enabled him to resolve whether or not a local scally was having a laugh at his expense with a diary containing 63 pages of text?

4. Why didn't Mike ask for a minimum of 63 blank pages? Because that's what the local scally would have had to have used to fake the diary, no?

5. If Mike, upon being told that an 1891 diary was available, decided it would be useful to see what a real Victorian diary looked like, and worth paying £25 to find out, why didn't he share his knowledge with Shirley Harrison with whom he signed a collaboration agreement only a few weeks later?

Without solid answers to these questions, I regret to say that your explanation makes no more sense that Ike's gibberish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'...she could still have delegated the task of getting a Victorian diary to her husband...'

Yes, and we all know how well that went, assuming you are including the red diary fiasco, don't we?

It must be a bit of a lark, sorting out the role play and moving the Barrett chess pieces around the board. There ought to be a board game in it - or is it already a bored game?

Anne is supposed to have been able to manipulate Mike throughout their marriage when it suits the narrative. At least, it suited Anne's narrative to say this when she was gamely trying to explain her actions in giving Mike the diary via Tony Devereux. Ironically, it also suits Roger Palmer's narrative to believe Anne about the manipulation bit but nothing else.

Are we really meant to believe that she would have left Mike "Blabbermouth" Barrett entirely to his own devices if he was sourcing the raw materials for Maybrick's diary, and would never once have given a thought to how he had gone about it? If he was secretive with her about the process or any of the details, would she not have wondered why? How could they have hoped to keep one another's stories straight for when the million and one questions were inevitably fired in their direction?

If Anne had been manipulating Mike all the way, right up to 9th March 1992, when he called Doreen to say he had the diary and their lives were changed forever, how did she suddenly become a lump of quivering jelly when she'd have needed her manipulative powers over Mike more than ever before?

Could you two gents not sort yourselves out via private message before coming back here with more of this paint-by-numbers approach to your two prime suspects?

It would be a very different kettle of fish if Anne was not involved from the start and Mike brought the diary home one day, determined to do something with it. Anne could do little to stop him going his own way in that event. She could only 'manipulate' Mike so far in this situation, and after that 'on his own head be it' if he'd got himself into something dodgy - which might explain the blazing row they had over the diary in front of Caroline. Failing to destroy it or curb Mike's enthusiasm, I can understand why she'd have been unhappy about it being in their house a moment longer than necessary in those early days. Did she persuade Mike to take it to the bank - literally, not figuratively - and then come up with the fire and theft line for Doreen, because she could hardly voice her suspicions that it may already have been stolen and too hot to handle? What doesn't get much attention is why the Barretts would have wanted it kept in the bank at all, if they had just created it out of an innocent old photo album and nobody local knew the first thing about it.

Caz, you told me yesterday that you're not glued to the site reading every new diary post as it appears, so perhaps you missed Lombro's post to which mine and Roger's post were responses. It was Lombro who positively speculated about what Anne "would have known"if she'd been part of the forgery. But it wasn't presented as speculation, it was presented as fact. If she'd been involved in the forgery (in any way), he said, she would have knownabout "the useless item" early enough to send it back.

His argument failed on the issue of Anne being able to send the diary back due to Earl's terms and conditions but I was also pointing out for his benefit, not for yours, in case he repeated a similar argument in future, that it's not true to say that if Anne had been involved in the forgery she would have known about the red diary at the time Mike received it. She might not. And being involved in the forgery, as I said, could have meant she was the mastermind behind it or simply the person who did her husband a favour by writing out the text in a disguised hand. If the mastermind, she could, as I said, have delegated the task of acquiring the diary to her husband and I fail to see why you needed to tell me how well that went. In the real world leaders often delegate tasks to subordinates which fail.

But I'm not doing the role play. That's your game.

As far as I'm concerned, there are three critical questions relating to the diary, the answers to which remain the same as they ever were:

1. Is it genuine? Answer: NO

2. Is there any reason why the Barretts couldn't have forged it? Answer: NO

2. Is there a plausible explanation for why Mike secretly sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to create a fake Victorian diary. Answer: No

All your endless speculations about "If Anne did this" and "If Mike did that" haven't moved the needle one iota regarding these questions which are the only questions worth asking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not really. It's more of a problem for Barrett believers. A random practical joker, wanting to write Jack the Ripper's diary, would not have needed anything like 32 pages blank on each side to play their funny little game. They'd have been blessed to find one like the scrapbook. You cut your garment according to your cloth. At least 20 pages [or 40 sides] would have satisfied anyone with fakery in mind. Asking for a diary, with as many unused pages as the scrapbook contained used ones, was neither necessary nor likely to be successful.

Only if Mike needed something with at least enough consecutive pages that were blank on both sides, to accommodate the typescript that was supposedly on his word processor, would he have sought the same, or similar number of unused pages as were used for the diary in the scrapbook. He'd also have needed to estimate the number based on transferring the text smoothly by hand into whatever was located.

All for now. It's cocktail hour again.

I don't think you've understood what Roger was saying, Caz.

Of course Jack the Ripper's diary could have been written on a mere 20 blank pages but the fact of the matter, according to your theory, is that it wasn't, and Mike knew it wasn't. So the local scally must have had access to a diary (if we assume that Mike thought of the photograph album as "a diary") with a lot more than 20 blank pages.

Hence, finding out if a diary with only 20 blank pages was available wouldn't have told Mike anything about whether he was, in fact, being duped by a local scally, would it?

[rjpalmer]

Another interesting issue arises in that Anne appears to have been given advance warning by Feldman prior to 5th July 1995, that the news of the 1891 diary was out in the open so she had plenty of time to think about what to say prior to Keith calling her on 22nd August 1995. Yet, she only thought to look through he cheque stubs for the first time on 22nd August.

Isn't this rather strange?

At the time of the July 1995 meeting, even Melvin Harris couldn't have known that the maroon diary had been purchased in 1992. Barrett's affidavit didn't say that. It said 1990/91. So how did Feldman know?

Either Barrett sobered up and really did find the receipt and told Feldman about it....or Anne told him.

No one else could have known the correct year until Keith chased down the cancelled check the following month, August.

[John Wheat]

Caz, you told me yesterday that you're not glued to the site reading every new diary post as it appears, so perhaps you missed Lombro's post to which mine and Roger's post were responses. It was Lombro who positively speculated about what Anne "would have known"if she'd been part of the forgery. But it wasn't presented as speculation, it was presented as fact. If she'd been involved in the forgery (in any way), he said, she would have knownabout "the useless item" early enough to send it back.

His argument failed on the issue of Anne being able to send the diary back due to Earl's terms and conditions but I was also pointing out for his benefit, not for yours, in case he repeated a similar argument in future, that it's not true to say that if Anne had been involved in the forgery she would have known about the red diary at the time Mike received it. She might not. And being involved in the forgery, as I said, could have meant she was the mastermind behind it or simply the person who did her husband a favour by writing out the text in a disguised hand. If the mastermind, she could, as I said, have delegated the task of acquiring the diary to her husband and I fail to see why you needed to tell me how well that went. In the real world leaders often delegate tasks to subordinates which fail.

But I'm not doing the role play. That's your game.

As far as I'm concerned, there are three critical questions relating to the diary, the answers to which remain the same as they ever were:

1. Is it genuine? Answer: NO

2. Is there any reason why the Barretts couldn't have forged it? Answer: NO

2. Is there a plausible explanation for why Mike secretly sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to create a fake Victorian diary. Answer: No

All your endless speculations about "If Anne did this" and "If Mike did that" haven't moved the needle one iota regarding these questions which are the only questions worth asking.

This is absolutely getting down to it Herlock. The Diary is clearly not genuine.

There is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have forged the diary.

There is no plausible explanation for why Mike secretly sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to create a fake Victorian diary.

No amount of bullshit on this thread has changed any of this. Nor has anyone satisfactorily refuted any of these points.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is absolutely getting down to it Herlock. The Diary is clearly not genuine.

There is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have forged the diary.

There is no plausible explanation for why Mike secretly sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to create a fake Victorian diary.

No amount of bullshit on this thread has changed any of this. Nor has anyone satisfactorily refuted any of these points.

You have put it in a punchier way than I would have dared, John.

"No amount of bullshit on this thread has changed any of this."

Hard to disagree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't this rather strange?

At the time of the July 1995 meeting, even Melvin Harris couldn't have known that the maroon diary had been purchased in 1992. Barrett's affidavit didn't say that. It said 1990/91. So how did Feldman know?

Either Barrett sobered up and really did find the receipt and told Feldman about it....or Anne told him.

No one else could have known the correct year until Keith chased down the cancelled check the following month, August.

Hi Roger,

Apparently we're not allowed to talk to each other outside of private messages unless we first sort ourselves out. It upsets the natives, you see. But I'll take my life into my own hands and say that this whole business is very curious.

Anne is, of course, the (only) other candidate for passing on information to Feldman and I did wonder if Feldman was using Melvin Harris's name as a disguise during the meeting because he didn't want to tell Mike (or Keith?) that he was speaking to, and getting additional information from, Anne. But, according to Caz's summary of the meeting, to which I don't think a full transcript has been produced, Feldman asked Mike why he (Mike) told Harris that the diary was bought in 1992 for £25. Perhaps he was trying to gaslight and bamboozle Mike, and was relying on the fact that Mike wouldn't be able to remember what he had or had not said to Harris, which I would have thought is rather unlikely, but then we have this:

"He asks Mike why he implied to Melvin that the receipt for it proved Anne wrote the diary."

Surely that means that Melvin must have spoken to Feldman about the diary? Unless Feldman was again trying to totally bamboozle Mike, why would he have said such a thing to the very person to whom he is relaying a private conversation which that person is supposed to have had with a third party?

If it turns out to be Anne who told Feldman that the diary was bought in 1992 for £25 this would be rather suspicious because on 22nd August, Anne was recorded as telling Keith:

"Thinks it was pre Doreen... thinks Mike got it by phoning up Yellow Pages – wanted to see what a Victorian Diary looked like – All Ann can clearly remember is having to pay £20 for it – is going to search for cheque stubs !"

That's strange if she'd already told Feldman she'd paid £25 for the diary.

We can see that Keith wrote "Ann" btw which must have got him a pretty strong telling off from Caz when she first saw it, just like wot John got.

If it was Harris who did, indeed, pass this information along to Feldman about the diary having been bought in 1992 for £25, he could have got the £25 price easily enough from Mike's affidavit but I agree that it's difficult to work out where he could have got the correct year from. Like you say, perhaps the receipt had turned up by this time, allowing Mike to refresh his memory and pass on the correct year to Melvin. I can't help thinking this must be the answer. If so, we're back to the fact that Harris was providing new information to Feldman, despite having been criticised on this forum for not having done so.

The other thing that's very strange about the summary of the meeting is that Mike appears to have been told by Feldman that he (Feldman) doesn't know anything about the red diary. It's recorded by Caz that Mike, "accuses Feldman of knowing about it and wants him to admit it." This seems like another example where Mike is absolutely correct but is being treated very badly. We now know from Keith's note that Mike had expressly told Feldman a few weeks earlier about the diary, so it's no wonder he accused Feldman of knowing about it and was wanting him to admit it! Even stranger is that, from appearing not to know anything at all about the diary, Feldman suddenly reveals that he knows all about it....from a conversation he's had not with Mike but with Melvin Harris!!! How odd that he didn't say, "Oh yes, I know all about this diary, Mike, you told me about it last month". What the watching Keith Skinner was making of all this, I know not. Did he not think to chip in to remind Feldman that Mike had, in fact, told him about the diary?

Well, hopefully Caz will clear up this perplexing mystery. Or maybe we'll even receive a message from the gods, via Ike, about what Keith recalls of all this.

[Lombro2]

So your theory is that Mike and Anne forged the diary and presented it themselves, as if it’s a normal thing to do, and then suspected that anyone might think they were presenting their own forgery.

So Anne didn’t want to mention the red diary they bought because it would look suspicious. If she didn’t forge the Ripper Diary, she would have said, “Look at the research we did already by buying a Victorian Diary!”

Your theories don’t really sound so good when you write it down straight. Otherwise it might make sense and be script worthy like the Hitler Diary stories.


The story of the [Hitler Diaries] scandal was the basis for the films Selling Hitler (1991) for the British channel ITV, the German film Schtonk! (1992), and the television series Faking Hitler (2021).

Selling Barrett anyone? (2026)