New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

It's somewhat surprising that I have to tell you that there are two tapes from October 1994 on Casebook, one dated 24th October and one dated 31st October. While I haven't listened to either of them...

I originally made a note on my timeline that the tape labelled 24th October 1994 appeared to have been used again a week later, for a conversation on 31st October. I just checked the tape thread here on casebook, and as I thought the list only has the one tape dated 24th, and no separate tape for 31st, so it's somewhat surprising that you are telling me there are two tapes, one for each date in October. Did you imagine it?

Your claim that Barrett could have told "the full story" in October 1993 doesn't make any sense to me. As we've discussed, I think it plausible that he only confessed in June 1994 due to his imminent forthcoming exposure of having been a journalist and he didn't then want to implicate his wife in a public newspaper confession, which seems reasonable to me. But then he privately told Gray the full story about Anne's involvement when questioned in detail about the forgery for the first time. I don’t understand why do you have such a problem with that Caz?

So what do you think Mike meant in his January 1995 affidavit, when he stated:

'Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary").'

There is nothing to suggest Mike had only decided to confess in June 1994, because he had been about to be exposed as a former journalist.

Okay, I get it. He was lying again, or Alan Gray got the wrong end of the stick. But that doesn't help you to establish the truth, when that's all you have to rely on.

If the Barretts forged the diary in April 1992, Mike could have told the whole story at any time, if he did it because he thought confession would be 'good for the soul', as you suggested.

I certainly have considered that Anne would have known that Mike's affidavit was rubbish if she wasn't involved in the forgery - because it's obvious - but, as I've explained, if that was the case, it surprises me that she regarded the affidavit as a form of blackmail. Could you please provide some evidence that Melvin Harris believed that Mike's affidavit was "rubbish"?

Melvin Harris stated on the casebook, long afterwards, that his conclusion was that the Barretts had merely handled and placed someone else's forgery.

Why do you think Mike delivered the affidavit to Anne's door? What reaction did he want from her? His entire beef at that time was that she was refusing to talk to him and he couldn't see Caroline.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Slowly catching up with some unread posts...

I'm struggling to find anything in this lengthy post of yours, Herlock, which in any way supports a theory that the photo album was bought at an auction sale - by Mike or Anne [he made both claims separately to Alan Gray and gave conflicting years and dates for the purchase] - on 31st March 1992, and the diary was then handwritten into it over 63 pages by Anne, using a disguised hand, from a previously prepared typescript, followed by the transcript [as seen on casebook] typed from the handwritten version, in time for Mike to take both documents to London on 13th April 1992.

That is the only working theory involving a Barrett hoax, and there has never been any credible evidence that any of it happened. Nobody seems sure whether they believe it was Mike who came up with the original idea and then composed the text, or if this was Anne, or was it both of them in close collaboration, or even mostly the product of Anne's brain, with Mike contributing only the odd line of doggerel? All theoretical scenarios have been suggested at one time or another, but no single coherent and consistent explanation takes precedence over all the others and fits neatly with the known facts, without sounding any jarring notes.

For instance, if Anne had done the lion's share of the creative work, plus the handwriting, as RJ Palmer has theorised on occasion, how would that have affected the suggested motives for Mike's initial forgery claims in June 1994, where he makes no mention of Anne or anyone else being involved in the process? Why would his former journalistic ambitions have been relevant in that scenario, if Anne supplied the brains and Mike the brawn, to bully her into being his partner in crime against her will and better judgment, as RJ Palmer has also theorised? Why would confession have been good for the soul in Mike's case, as you suggested yourself, if he'd had very little input?

When and why do you suppose Anne tried to destroy the diary, if it couldn't have been created without her? All three Barretts spoke independently of the row over the diary, and there was nothing to gain from inventing it. More to lose in fact, because the story was that Mike had got it innocently from Tony with no strings attached, back in 1991, so why would Anne have been so against Mike taking it to London the following year? Even if it had come from the Graham family, who would have known this and why would it matter anyway?

Does it make any sense to you at all that Anne might have been intimidated by Mike's controlling behaviour into creating the diary, after which she typed up the transcript, but tried to destroy the scrapbook at one point, presumably regretting the whole affair and taking her chances with Mike's temper? Surviving the episode, along with the diary, Anne let Mike get on with it and sent Caroline with him down to London again with the diary in early June to meet Robert Smith.

The evidence that the diary existed on 9th March 1992 is the strong circumstantial case for it being found in Dodd's house that day during the electrical work. For all the rumours to have been false, there would need to have been a wide, complex and ongoing conspiracy to deceive, involving numerous scallywags with seemingly nothing to gain, who must have known and consulted each other to make their accounts consistent and compatible with documented records of their individual circumstances. By rights, the double event of 9th March 1992 should never have happened, and should certainly not have been tucked away in the historical record where nobody on the planet was aware of it, if there was nothing of any substance behind the collective accounts of Mike's diary having been found in the house where Maybrick died. That would be the mother of all coincidences.

Love,

Caz
X

The big points are that the diary was not written by Maybrick and there is no plausible reason to why the Barrett's couldn't have written the diary.

[caz]

Caz, in 2015 you posted:'I am 100% certain that Mike got involved by pure chance, and long after the diary had been written and placed in Battlecrease'. That is surely a statement that needs substantiating. If you can't prove this, why say it? The fact you might find the involvement of the Barretts unconvincing doesn't mean they didn't forge the diary, does it? For myself, all I can say is that I'm not accusing the Barretts of anything. I just can't see why they couldn't have done it, and you certainly haven't explained why they couldn't have done it. So it seems to me that if you don't have the evidence to rule the Barretts out, you should be keeping an open mind and accepting the possibility that they might have done it. At the very least, I would suggest that you shouldn't be treating people, like myself, who think the Barretts might have done it as the enemy.

I'm aware that it's been said that Mike tried to claim that he had the auction ticket, although I've never seen any form of quote from him saying this, so, until I do, I can't form a definitive opinion, but you've always said, and I certainly accept, that Mike was a compulsive liar and we shouldn't believe anything he ever said. That's why I found it odd that you said something like "Mike could easily have proved he forged the diary by producing the auction ticket". To say such a thing is to fall for Mike's (apparent) lies. Yes, I know you didn't believe him for one second, but then why frame the question in such a way? I'm suggesting that (if he was the forger) the reality is that he couldn't easily prove that he forged the diary.

Now you've really confused me with your statement that a theory that the diary was written between 1st and 13th April 1992 "contradicts the evidence that it already existed on 9th March." What evidence are you talking about? There isn't any, surely. You can't possibly be saying it existed because the known liar, Mike, said so to Doreen can you? What else is there? Surely, no evidence at all outside of the Barretts who were telling a false story that it was in their possession long before Tony Devereux died in August 1991. So, please, if I've missed some evidence that the diary existed as a physical item on 9th March please do tell me what it is because it must be very important.

I'm not sure what the recent "bumbling" fiasco is that you mention unless it's the fact that some people bizarrely seem to think that the diarist is remotely likely to have used the expression "bumbling buffoon" in 1888 when expressions of this nature not, in fact, used by anyone until the mid-twentieth century. And the word "bumbling" WAS obsolete in the 1880s, other than in regional dialects, Caz, that's a fact recorded by a contemporary dictionary, and the "bumbling" in "bumbling buffoon" has nothing to do with the Dickens character, Mr Bumble. The ambiguous examples of the word "bumbling" provided elsewhere have changed absolutely nothing in circumstances where I had already stated it wasn't literally impossible for someone in 1888 to have written the expression "bumbling buffoon" and I've no idea who you think should be apologising to whom. But that really is a different discussion to the one in this thread, and one which simply avoids the fact that it's "one off instance" in the diary which proves that it wasn't written before 1945 and, thanks to Roger Palmer's amazing detective work, which I trust you're aware of, we can now say with some confidence that it couldn't have been written before 1988

Slowly catching up with some unread posts...

I'm struggling to find anything in this lengthy post of yours, Herlock, which in any way supports a theory that the photo album was bought at an auction sale - by Mike or Anne [he made both claims separately to Alan Gray and gave conflicting years and dates for the purchase] - on 31st March 1992, and the diary was then handwritten into it over 63 pages by Anne, using a disguised hand, from a previously prepared typescript, followed by the transcript [as seen on casebook] typed from the handwritten version, in time for Mike to take both documents to London on 13th April 1992.

That is the only working theory involving a Barrett hoax, and there has never been any credible evidence that any of it happened. Nobody seems sure whether they believe it was Mike who came up with the original idea and then composed the text, or if this was Anne, or was it both of them in close collaboration, or even mostly the product of Anne's brain, with Mike contributing only the odd line of doggerel? All theoretical scenarios have been suggested at one time or another, but no single coherent and consistent explanation takes precedence over all the others and fits neatly with the known facts, without sounding any jarring notes.

For instance, if Anne had done the lion's share of the creative work, plus the handwriting, as RJ Palmer has theorised on occasion, how would that have affected the suggested motives for Mike's initial forgery claims in June 1994, where he makes no mention of Anne or anyone else being involved in the process? Why would his former journalistic ambitions have been relevant in that scenario, if Anne supplied the brains and Mike the brawn, to bully her into being his partner in crime against her will and better judgment, as RJ Palmer has also theorised? Why would confession have been good for the soul in Mike's case, as you suggested yourself, if he'd had very little input?

When and why do you suppose Anne tried to destroy the diary, if it couldn't have been created without her? All three Barretts spoke independently of the row over the diary, and there was nothing to gain from inventing it. More to lose in fact, because the story was that Mike had got it innocently from Tony with no strings attached, back in 1991, so why would Anne have been so against Mike taking it to London the following year? Even if it had come from the Graham family, who would have known this and why would it matter anyway?

Does it make any sense to you at all that Anne might have been intimidated by Mike's controlling behaviour into creating the diary, after which she typed up the transcript, but tried to destroy the scrapbook at one point, presumably regretting the whole affair and taking her chances with Mike's temper? Surviving the episode, along with the diary, Anne let Mike get on with it and sent Caroline with him down to London again with the diary in early June to meet Robert Smith.

The evidence that the diary existed on 9th March 1992 is the strong circumstantial case for it being found in Dodd's house that day during the electrical work. For all the rumours to have been false, there would need to have been a wide, complex and ongoing conspiracy to deceive, involving numerous scallywags with seemingly nothing to gain, who must have known and consulted each other to make their accounts consistent and compatible with documented records of their individual circumstances. By rights, the double event of 9th March 1992 should never have happened, and should certainly not have been tucked away in the historical record where nobody on the planet was aware of it, if there was nothing of any substance behind the collective accounts of Mike's diary having been found in the house where Maybrick died. That would be the mother of all coincidences.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I'll be interested in hearing the episode "The Mind of Mike," though I'm skeptical of it.

"IIn [sic] this episode, the panel delves into the psyche of Mike Barrett, the enigmatic figure behind the diary's emergence. Through meticulous analysis, they attempt to unravel the mysteries surrounding Barrett's erratic behavior."

For over 25 years I've seen many people try to unravel Barrett, and I have no faith in their conclusions. I think those who spent time with Barrett understand him least of all. With someone like Barrett, there is a great deal to be said for complete clinical detachment.

Calling him a pathological liar, while true, only grazes the surface. He was not a liar in the sense of someone who wants to deceive you. That sounds bizarre, but that's the mistake people make. In reality, Mike doesn't care if you believe him. At times, he is overjoyed that you know he's lying. His aim is less than that, and it's more than that. He's not clever, but he is a mental terrorist. His aim is to exasperate and to sow doubt. If you walk away convinced that he knows nothing at all (which is what many have concluded, wrongly), he's fine with that, too. Indeed, he loves that conclusion. If he was the hoaxer, why wouldn't he be?

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

Well diary discussion has just hit a new low. I've been criticised for "presupposing" that "'one off instance' means 'one-off instance'". Has anything crazier ever been written?

Ike, as I've already said but you ignored, the dictionary itself originally had an entry for "one off" not "one-off". The hyphen was (and remains) optional. They mean exactly the same thing, with or without a hyphen. There is no doubt about it.

How long ago did David come up with his ‘one off instance’ point Ike? I’m guessing at around 10 years? So 10 years of searching and not one point that has even come close to refuting it. When you originally asked for your ‘irrefutable proof’ did anyone realise that you had an unwritten caveat - that if a point was made then you would have unlimited time to refute it?

[Iconoclast]

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

I haven't ignored your bigger question - it requires some thought and I'm working (i.e., employed) right now (and Newcastle are live tonight); but I just wanted to quickly reply to this one because you are promoting a presupposition based upon your belief that 'one off instance' means 'one-off instance' and also that 'one-off instance' was not a concept anyone made in 1888 nor could make in 1888. You are attempting to use inductive reasoning from this premise but you cannot say for certain that the premise is correct so your strident conclusion is a logical fallacy.

You may be right about your conclusion but your certainty right now is not a fact, it is an opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinions but you are not welcome to have your own facts [thank you, Ricky Gervais]. You cannot state 'Someone forged it' and present it as a fact because the premise you are using to draw your conclusion is unproven. It may never be proven because the spoken record from 1888 is long gone and the written record from 1888 is largely gone.

Just please be careful with your opinions and try not to confuse them with agreed facts.

At least you presented a fact when you stated that 'Someone owned up to it'. Obviously, that's a fact which tells us absolutely nothing about what happened before 'someone owned up to it'.

[rjpalmer]

Second email:

In 1873, while ill in bed, he [Michael Maybrick] wrote the words and the music to his first big song, A Warrior Bold, and within a few years had earned well over a £1000 in royalties (Chris Jones citing the Edinburgh Evening News, 17th December 1877 as his source.)

Hi Ike,

It doesn't help us and I'm more than happy to drop the matter, but FYI you might ask your correspondent if a mistake has been made.

Out of curiosity I checked the source mentioned--the Edinburgh Evening News for 17 December 1877---and I'm not finding this anecdote.

All I'm finding is this:





As far as I can tell, the only accounts of Michael Maybrick having written the words to 'A Warrior Bold' date to 1913.

The bad news for you is that even if it can be shown than Mike Maybrick wrote enough lyrics to his songs to warrant the impression left by the diarist, this does not indicate obscure knowledge by the author, as the same thing was reported (rightly or wrongly) by Ryan (and, going from memory, either Christie or Morland).

Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

I just don’t know why there’s such a resistance to the suggestion John. Someone forged it. Someone owned up to it.

[John Wheat]

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

I doubt you'll get a straight answer Herlock because there is no reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary jointly. In fact the smart money is on the Barretts having created the diary between them.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lord, awesomely bad memory by one of us. Did I not acknowledge recently that your desperately unevidenced theory is at least theoretically possible? I’m sure I did but maybe I dreamed it.

While we’re on the subject of Spandau Ballet, I’ve often wondered if Barrett wasn’t a closet fan too - after all, did he not steal the following line for his literary masterpiece?

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue …

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them?

My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

So there are two possible answers:

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

Just to give you an example of how it's done. To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:

James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.

And you can quote me on that!

[rjpalmer]

Some two decades after publication of Harrison’s first book, Casebook: Jack the Ripper contributor Lydia Trivia unearthed examples of songs – mostly older than Maybrick’s more established works – where he alone had written both music and lyrics.
—ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS / SATURDAY AUGUST 30th 1913 - DEATH OF MR. MICHAEL MAYBRICK. His first song was “A Warrior Bold,” which remains one of the most popular of its class. He wrote it while lying ill in bed, and accepted 5s for it plus a royalty.)

Hi Ike,

No offense intended, but I'm afraid I have to challenge the information supplied by your first correspondent, especially his (or her) use of the word "songs" (plural).

I await further clarification on this point, because this appears to be a flaw of memory.

The contributor was not "Lydia Trivia" -- her name on this forum was simply Livia. (She went by 'Livia Trivia' on JTR Forums).

In both of her posts on the subject, she only identified one song with lyrics by Michael Maybrick---the same singular song mentioned by me and your other two correspondents: A Warrior Bold.


So where does 'songs' come from? What is the source for multiple songs with lyrics by Michael Maybrick? (And trust me, old boy, obituaries and Wikipedia entries aren't always reliable.)

The way I read it, this was...er....dare I say...a one-off by Stephen Adams while sick in bed.

Please note that in her post to JTR Forums (see below) Livia Trivia referred to 'Edwin Thomas' as a one-hit wonder. Which implies she couldn't find any other lyrics written by him if indeed her research was, as you say, "excellent." Nor does she insist Thomas was a pseudonym for 'Stephen Adams' but she might be implying it.

An open question, I'd say!!

RP

[Iconoclast]

But it really brings me back to my central question which I've been asking over and over without any sensible reply. Why could the Barretts not have jointly created that relatively short 63 page error strewn, historically inaccurate, grammatically poor, badly spelt, document? After all, it's noliterary masterpiece, is it?

Lord, awesomely bad memory by one of us. Did I not acknowledge recently that your desperately unevidenced theory is at least theoretically possible? I’m sure I did but maybe I dreamed it.

While we’re on the subject of Spandau Ballet, I’ve often wondered if Barrett wasn’t a closet fan too - after all, did he not steal the following line for his literary masterpiece?

With a thrill in my head and a pill on my tongue …

[Herlock Sholmes]

So true, Herlock.

Do you have some kind of Orsam obsession, Ike?

I wouldn't mind but it was simplicity itself to find those "literary masterpiece" quotes by entering the word "masterpiece" in the CB search function for Maybrick threads. I found them all in about two minutes. The idea that I needed Orsam, or anyone else who likes Spandau Ballet, to send me those quotes to my inbox, which appears to be the suggestion from you and Caz, is both insulting and crazy.

I do wonder, however, if you found it as amusing as I did that even though Mike Barrett never apparently once used the expression "literary masterpiece" to describe the diary, Caz decides to attribute it to him because she assumes that's what he must have thought of it, and this explains why she referred to it herself at least twice as a literary masterpiece. Then she's puzzled as to why John feels the need to say that the diary is no literary masterpiece. Hilarious.

But it really brings me back to my central question which I've been asking over and over without any sensible reply. Why could the Barretts not have jointly created that relatively short 63 page error strewn, historically inaccurate, grammatically poor, badly spelt, document? After all, it's noliterary masterpiece, is it?

[Iconoclast]

What is the accusation, Ike?
That's what I was asking.

So true, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that an accusation you'd like to deny at all Herlock?

What is the accusation, Ike?

That's what I was asking.