The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's the most sensible thing you've written in a long time, Ike.

When I said that's the most sensible thing you've written in a long time, I was, of course, referring to the part where you said "I'm probably a fool for coming back in", not the part where you condescendingly refer to me as "Johnny Come Lately".

[Iconoclast]

I think it may be worth my while re-iterating what I have already iterated but this time in language which cannot be misunderstood (or plain ignored) prior to being asked to do so yet again: I cannot think of any agreed-upon evidence which would preclude the possibility of Mike and (or, indeed, or) Anne Barrett from having sourced the Maybrick scrapbook, written a text of a hoax, and then written that text into the Maybrick scrapbook before Mike presented it to the world as the musings of the world's most talked-about murderer.

That said, I am aware that there is evidence which strongly argues against this but which itself - like pretty much everything connected to this case - is open to argument and debate.

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree upon is that only one person has ever made a case for having hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook, and that person is, of course, Mike Barrett.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that he made his claim in the middle of 1994 when his life was in a truly sorry state, his wife and daughter having left him six months earlier.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that by then Mike Barrett was heavily into his cups with the water of life and that he had become a man incapable of telling the same story for more than about twenty minutes at a time without erring into some other.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that the only evidence in existence that Mike Barrett may actually have hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook (we cannot include his claims because they are unevidenced and therefore unproven) is that he sought out a Victorian diary in March 1992 - an event which has more explanations than simply the one and therefore remains itself unproven.

Another thing that we can all agree upon is that some people have attempted to argue that Anne's handwriting is redolent of the scrapbook's and therefore she wrote the text into it just as her ex-husband claimed.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that Mike Barrett owned the scrapbook and knew it well and therefore was very well-placed to build a fantasy story around it to imply that he had hoaxed the document.

That is the case in favour of Mike Barrett as a hoaxer of the Maybrick scrapbook.

Those are the facts.

If that's enough for you, dear readers, fair enough - go fill your boots.

Personally, anyone arguing that that is sufficient to convince anyone of Mike Barrett's hoax claims would not find me personally drinking at that same bar. Indeed, I'd have to say to them, as my old Teuchter friends in and around Aberdeen still say, 'Gie yersel a shak'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it may be worth my while re-iterating what I have already iterated but this time in language which cannot be misunderstood (or plain ignored) prior to being asked to do so yet again: I cannot think of any agreed-upon evidence which would preclude the possibility of Mike and (or, indeed, or) Anne Barrett from having sourced the Maybrick scrapbook, written a text of a hoax, and then written that text into the Maybrick scrapbook before Mike presented it to the world as the musings of the world's most talked-about murderer.

That said, I am aware that there is evidence which strongly argues against this but which itself - like pretty much everything connected to this case - is open to argument and debate.

Perhaps the one thing we can all agree upon is that only one person has ever made a case for having hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook, and that person is, of course, Mike Barrett.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that he made his claim in the middle of 1994 when his life was in a truly sorry state, his wife and daughter having left him six months earlier.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that by then Mike Barrett was heavily into his cups with the water of life and that he had become a man incapable of telling the same story for more than about twenty minutes at a time without erring into some other.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that the only evidence in existence that Mike Barrett may actually have hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook (we cannot include his claims because they are unevidenced and therefore unproven) is that he sought out a Victorian diary in March 1992 - an event which has more explanations than simply the one and therefore remains itself unproven.

Another thing that we can all agree upon is that some people have attempted to argue that Anne's handwriting is redolent of the scrapbook's and therefore she wrote the text into it just as her ex-husband claimed.

Another thing we can all agree upon is that Mike Barrett owned the scrapbook and knew it well and therefore was very well-placed to build a fantasy story around it to imply that he had hoaxed the document.

That is the case in favour of Mike Barrett as a hoaxer of the Maybrick scrapbook.

Those are the facts.

If that's enough for you, dear readers, fair enough - go fill your boots.

Personally, anyone arguing that that is sufficient to convince anyone of Mike Barrett's hoax claims would not find me personally drinking at that same bar. Indeed, I'd have to say to them, as my old Teuchter friends in and around Aberdeen still say, 'Gie yersel a shak'.

For the record Ike, I accept that MB is the only person who has ever confessed to forging the diary. I accept that at the time he confessed, his wife and daughter had left him and he was drinking. I do not accept that he was incapable of telling the same story for more than about twenty minutes at a time. I do not accept that the only evidence that MB may have been involved in creating the diary is that he sought out a Victorian diary in March 1992. I agree that some people have pointed out some similarities between Anne's handwriting and the handwriting of the diarist and, further, that it's undeniable that such similarities exist. I agree that MB owned the scrapbook and likely knew it well but would say that if he was capable of building a fantasy story to imply he had created it then he would surely also have been capable of building a fantasy story around James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper.

[Iconoclast]

For the record Ike, I accept that MB is the only person who has ever confessed to forging the diary. I accept that at the time he confessed, his wife and daughter had left him and he was drinking. I do not accept that he was incapable of telling the same story for more than about twenty minutes at a time. I do not accept that the only evidence that MB may have been involved in creating the diary is that he sought out a Victorian diary in March 1992. I agree that some people have pointed out some similarities between Anne's handwriting and the handwriting of the diarist and, further, that it's undeniable that such similarities exist. I agree that MB owned the scrapbook and likely knew it well but would say that if he was capable of building a fantasy story to imply he had created it then he would surely also have been capable of building a fantasy story around James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper.

So it's not a lot for you and your ilk to hang their collective hats on, is it? An alcoholic in a pub had a drink, couldn't stop, slurred a lot, told some tall tales, fell over utterly peshed to the gills. The End. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course - though I find the metaphor tells the tale as well as the evidence does.

To be clear for the benefit of my many dear and often easily-misled readers, there is almost nothing concrete whatsoever in the suggestion that Mike and Anne Barrett had any part in the creation of what we now know of as the Maybrick scrapbook. Indeed, if it wasn't for the creative minds of a very small number of people, absolutely no-one would think it possible on any level whatsoever.

Let that sink in: if it wasn't for the creative minds of a very small number of people, absolutely no-one would think it possible on any level whatsoever.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Whilst we are on the subject of what little we know for certain, I think it is worth my while reminding everyone that Anne Graham's sole claim regarding the provenance of the Maybrick scrapbook was that she had seen it amongst her father's possessions in 1968 or 1969 and that - when asked about it - her father said he had first received it in 1943. Prior to her making this claim in the summer of 1994, she had not ventured a word of what she believed regarding the scrapbook's origins.

I hope that we can agree upon that. She never once 'changed her story', as is so often claimed by those whose motivations or reasons for doing so do not always seem honourable.

I hope that we can also agree that the one thing which supports her story is that Florence Maybrick left prison in 1904 and briefly adopted the name 'Mrs. Graham' before leaving for America (once her probation ended) at which point she adopted the name 'Rose Ingraham' for the journey.

I hope that we can agree further that Florence Maybrick calling herself 'Mrs. Graham' - even briefly - lends an amount of credibility to Anne's father's suggestion that the Maybrick scrapbook came down the Graham line.

I hope that we can all agree, finally, that that is all we can say with any certainty on the issue of the Anne Graham provenance for the Maybrick scrapbook.

We may not choose to believe that it is true. Indeed, we may feel that it came at a particularly convenient time in the story of the Maybrick scrapbook, though - equally - one might argue that it came when it did precisely because it was a convenient time to be honest about what she knew.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

So it's not a lot for you and your ilk to hang their collective hats on, is it? An alcoholic in a pub had a drink, couldn't stop, slurred a lot, told some tall tales, fell over utterly peshed to the gills. The End. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course - though I find the metaphor tells the tale as well as the evidence does.

To be clear for the benefit of my many dear and often easily-misled readers, there is almost nothing concrete whatsoever in the suggestion that Mike and Anne Barrett had any part in the creation of what we now know of as the Maybrick scrapbook. Indeed, if it wasn't for the creative minds of a very small number of people, absolutely no-one would think it possible on any level whatsoever.

Let that sink in: if it wasn't for the creative minds of a very small number of people, absolutely no-one would think it possible on any level whatsoever.

Ike

We've now got to the stage where I don"t even understand what you're even talking about. Surely most people suspected the diary to be a forgery from the start and the Barretts, or at least one of them, would always have been obvious candidates for being the forger(s) due to the lack of any known provenance prior to the diary's emergence from 12 Goldie Street.

Furthermore, this would surely have been a far stronger suspicion from the start had it been known, at the time the diary's existence was revealed to the world in 1993, that Barrett had been a journalist.

Isn't the actual truth the direct opposite of what you say? Namely that if it wasn't for the creative minds of a small number of people, absolutely no-one would doubt that the diary was forged by the Barretts.

[Iconoclast]

Furthermore, this would surely have been a far stronger suspicion from the start had it been known, at the time the diary's existence was revealed to the world in 1993, that Barrett had been a journalist.

I find the 'journalist' thing one of the clearest signs that someone is seeking to make an advantage of some seriously intangible 'fact'. It is not a fact that Mike Barrett had a former career as a 'journalist'. It is an inference drawn from the fact that a man with writing ambitions, whilst part of a writing circle, successfully placed some very low-key articles in some very low-key periodicals for which he earned very little money indeed - maybe around £2,000 over four years or so. To make of this the notion of a 'career' is very obviously exaggeration for a particular effect. Yes, he had some articles published - this is what a writing circle encourages people to do to gain experience. Yes, he therefore earned a small amount of money doing so (maybe £500 a year if he was on a roll). But is that really the grounds to argue that he had a 'career' as a 'journalist'? Was he employed by anyone (as in an employee)? Was he registered as a self-employed journalist? These are the marks of someone who had grounds to say that were something and - over time - could justifiably say they had a career at something. There is no evidence that Mike Barrett was anything more than a very casual, aspiring writer who proved very quickly to be a dilettante and gave up, as so many people do when they realise their ambition far exceeds their competence or their potential.

So, in 1992, Mike Barrett was many years passed aspiring to be a writer. He had not got any articles published for years and he did not mention his previous attempts at writing because they would not have seemed particularly relevant to a man who knew he had what he had and that he had not hoaxed the thing he had. So - come 1994 - there would have been no thought whatsoever in his mind that he ought to fear being exposed as a career journalist because it simply wasn't true. I don't think he himself ever said so, did he? As I recall, that was left to the Nick Warrens of this world who were desperate to make an advantage of some seriously intangible 'fact'.

Much as you are doing today, in fact.