New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Lombro2]

As you said, it's important to be fair. That means you have to be able to suspend disbelief and see things the way the other side sees it, if only for five minutes. So here goes:

The proof that Michael Barrett wrote the Diary

1. He had it in his possession.


PS Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

[Iconoclast]

I'll concede the Diary is a forgery ...

That's a shame. I had you down as one of the good guys.

Come over to the proper thread and let us all know why you are conceding that the scrapbook is a hoax when you know deep down it ain't.

[Lombro2]

So we've rightly shifted the onus to prove the Diary's authenticity to the people, or person, who believe it, or believes it. Because you can prove a positive and the onus is on the people who believe something to prove it.

But inexplicably Barrett Theory Believers have shifted the onus of proving their Belief to the Non-Believers. Now the Non-Believers are working away at proving Michael Barrett didn't write the Diary and the Believers are just ducking and dodging. And of course, shifting the onus back on them, and not holding themselves up to the same standard.

They can't be taking the onus and shifting it at the same time. You read Mike's words! You listen to Mike's words! Find something that's demonstrably and unequivocably, undeniably and incontrovertibly true! I'll just sit here and sip my tea.

Why don't the Believers take the onus to prove their own theory, their own positive that they're positive about?

PS. If they won't (I'm guessing they won't since they never have), I can do it. I'll concede the Diary is a forgery and prove that Barrett was the forger. I'm not chicken. I'll take the onus and take on all the 3 amigo Non-Believers. Ready!

[Lombro2]

I didn't use Suzanne's father as a patsy to describe a completely different Verity watch. Obviously, he wasn't coached so probably wasn't in on it.

As for the Sock Drawer Caper, well I'll just leave that to the imagination of those who dream of golden sock drawers and sugar lumps.

[rjpalmer]

How I laughed!

This, my dear dear readers, is why Anne Barrett is occasionally described as having been tricked by her conman husband into writing the Maybrick scrapbook.

This is why I don't enjoy discussing the hoax with you, Ike. You don't act in good faith.

I did not suggest Anne was "tricked" into writing the hoax. This shows the fundamental dishonesty of your approach.

I suggested the hoax could have started out as a fictional diary. One doesn't need to "trick" someone into writing a work of fiction. (Although it is somewhat interesting that Anne herself claims she tried to "manipulate" Mike into doing so).

And it would hardly have been the first or last time a Ripper theory was presented as fiction. Martin Fido appears to have had the same suspicion.

I also suggested that Mike could have come up with the idea of creating a physical diary as a marketing gimmick and Anne--as a codependent to an alcoholic--went along to humor him, even though she would have been suspicious of his intent.

rjpalmer 12-31-2024:

"My suggestion--and that's all it is---but it's a damn good one--is that Barrett could have told his missus that the physical photo album confessional was just a marketing gimmick for their joint novella (and I hate to tell you this, old boy, but back in the 1980s there was a mystery novel marketed along similar lines in the United States)--which allowed her to suspend just enough belief to go along with Barrett's mad scheme.

Of course, the real reason was to humor him and thus keep peace in the house.

Would she have believed him?

Probably not.

But that's where the other angle comes in.

As I've told Caz about a zillion times, look no further than Anne Graham's own words.

I think Anne helped Barrett for the very reason she said she did--she assumed that when Barrett got to London with the ridiculous Diary, the literary agent Doreen Montgomery would "just send Mike packing."

--

She wasn't "tricked" Ike---that's a superficial rendering of what I suggested.

And if this suggestion is wrong, all it means is that Anne was a more willing co-conspirator than I suspect.

[rjpalmer]

there wasn't a peep about Anne being anything other than an honest British secretary until she needed to not be ...

I think we must travel in different circles.

Who are you referring to Ike?

The skeptics I know always thought of Anne Graham and her "in the family" nonsense as total malarky so you must be referring to Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, etc.

Maybe Shirley still thinks of Anne as an honest British secretary. I haven't heard otherwise. Does anyone know if she endorses the great Battlecrease caper?

It was the diary folk who needed to throw Suzanne and Ron under the bus, and, of course, they did the same with Anne.

[Iconoclast]

Why do I need to disprove your imagination?

The watch did not 'mysteriously appear' at the same time as the diary, as you claimed.

Suzanne and Ron Murphy informed Shirley Harrison that the watch had belonged to Suzanne's father, as part of the bits & bobs left over when he retired. It had been in the family's possession for years.



There wasn't a peep about Ron and Suzanne being anything other than honest British shopkeepers until the Battlecrease caper was invented, and then it was necessary to retroactively paint them as dishonest members of a gang of thieves and fencers.

Not very nice, Lombro.

How I laughed!

This, my dear dear readers, is why Anne Barrett is occasionally described as having been tricked by her conman husband into writing the Maybrick scrapbook. What's good for the Murphys has to therefore be good for the Anne Barretts because, of course, there wasn't a peep about Anne being anything other than an honest British secretary until she needed to not be ...

[rjpalmer]

Oh so you proved it saw the light of day in the previous 103 years! Wow.

Why do I need to disprove your imagination?

The watch did not 'mysteriously appear' at the same time as the diary, as you claimed.

Suzanne and Ron Murphy informed Shirley Harrison that the watch had belonged to Suzanne's father, as part of the bits & bobs left over when he retired. It had been in the family's possession for years.



There wasn't a peep about Ron and Suzanne being anything other than honest British shopkeepers until the Battlecrease caper was invented, and then it was necessary to retroactively paint them as dishonest members of a gang of thieves and fencers.

Not very nice, Lombro.

[Lombro2]

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Nothing new! Nothing real!

[Lombro2]

Oh so you proved it saw the light of day in the previous 103 years! Wow.

Something new! Something real!............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................

[rjpalmer]

there is the matter of the gold watch that mysteriously appeared at the same time

Imagination...it's one hell of a drug.

[Losmandris]

And so it begins..............

Have fun!

[Lombro2]

In conjunction with the Battlecrease Provenance, there is the matter of the gold watch that mysteriously appeared at the same time without a proven Provenance for the actual watch itself. It was alternately in a cubby hole in Battlecrease or it was in a jeweler's sock drawer until 1992.

Coincidentally, it has a watch repair mark in the middle which is an H or a K with the numbers 9/3.

I think that was the mark made by the jeweler and/or repairman who got the watch back up and running on March 9 of 1992. I think it's a K for Kruger of Kruger Jeweler. Their store is now in the same unit where Stewarts used to be but, in 1992, it was in the same neighborhood. They did not reply to two requests for comment.

The Inconvenient Truth of The Maybrick Watch - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

[Lombro2]

I agree you don't need a Provenance for a serial killer diary. It's not a work of art. But the Diary says, at the end when he's dying in his bed in Battlecrease, "I place this now in a place where it shall be found". That means Battlecrease (more likely than the Knowsley Building).

It could have come out of Battlecrease at any time between 1889 and 1992. So your theory must be that it came out of Battlecrease before and then came to him. And then Eddy by coincidence also came to him with a story of working at Battlecrease.

If Michael Barrett had the diary previously written by someone else, as you're now saying, then he'd have read that and known it meant Battlecrease. Or Mike first learned from Eddy what Battlecrease was, and he just happened to have a Diary that came from there.

So he had the written word and the words of Eddy to cement a Provenance given to him by Providence. And yet, again, he didn't receive it with open arms.

He's not thinking like a Forger. He's thinking like a Dealer who found out he's dealing a stolen artifact.

[John Wheat]

This is a completely pointless thread.