Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who was the author of the 'Maybrick' diary? Some options.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Before my grammar guardian scolds me, Johnson's=Johnsons.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
      What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

      Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.
      Interesting thoughts Dave. Agreed Mike Barrett was full of bull.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
        What we have discovered, or rediscovered in the last month or so with the transcript Mike Barrett is the prime suspect as the author of the words and one of his family or friends the hand-writer.

        Barrett was Merseyside Jack...and should be regarded no better than John Humble.
        On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.

        But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?

        Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post
          On what basis is Mike the "prime suspect." Acccepting his original affidavit runs into difficulty because he changed his story numerous times.
          Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?

          But what if we provisionally accept it? Well, on that basis he doesn't say he operated alone but that he was part of a conspiracy. And if you argue that he lied about that, then why accept any part of his account?
          I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.

          Of course, he makes it very clear that he had the primary role. However, this is a man who had a history of making wildly exaggerated claims about his achievements, so why should we accept his boasts this time?
          OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

          A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

          The simple facts are damning.
          My opinion is all I have to offer here,

          Dave.

          Smilies are canned laughter.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
            Do you have a name of someone else? Who is the Prime Suspect if not Barrett....Maybrick?



            I don't think he lied, it was a conspiracy...someone else did the handwriting.



            OK, let's accept nothing he ever said, lets ignore the lot....what are we left with?

            A published journalist/writer presents a "Journal" not in the handwriting of the apparent author and the book itself appears to have been something else before it was this diary.

            The simple facts are damning.
            I didn't say we should ignore everything he said. What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.

            This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements. Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint. Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.

            As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.

            What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John G View Post
              I didn't say we should ignore everything he said.
              I know you didn't say that, I never accused you of saying it, in fact it was me who said it.

              You're saying "We can't tell if what Mike Barrett said is true"...I'm saying let's discount all of it.

              What I have suggested in the past is that his role in any conspiracy-and Mike himself stated there was a conspiracy, and therefore others were involved-was much more peripheral than the central role he assigns to himself.
              Yes it's the whole "Mike Barrett couldn't write a sick note" narrative that is a total myth.

              This makes sense when you consider he had form for making exaggerated claims about his achievements.
              Yes.

              Moreover, as I've also previously pointed out, time and time again he demonstrated that he was an unreliable blabermouth, who would give a story to almost anyone for the price of a pint.

              Therefore, in any conspiracy, I doubt he would have been trusted with any central role.
              Yes, but your idea of a conspiracy is a nest of forgers, mine is Mike, Ann and a couple of friends or family members.

              As for being a published journalist, he had a few articles published in a celebrity teenage magazine, which Anne had to "tidy up." So who knows how much of that work was his own.
              Yep, we've done this to death really, back to "couldn't write a sick note"...fine Ann tidied up his articles, maybe even changed a few words or took a bit out, she is definitely part of any conspiracy so fine, so what?

              What we do know is that prior to Doreen being contacted, he'd been unemployment for years, taking on the role of househusband, whilst his wife worked as a secretary. And virtually no one who ever met him thinks him capable of writing the diary.
              Back to "Sick note"....and this has been done to death too, who met him before his stroke?

              Faked a stroke? Fine then he is deliberately trying to appear less competent than he was....and we all go around the Maybrickaround again.
              My opinion is all I have to offer here,

              Dave.

              Smilies are canned laughter.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                Hi Caz,

                thanks for your detailed and highly interesting reply. I'm now inspired to dig out the 'diary books' I have knocking about somewhere in this book-ridden dump, and have a good old re-read of them with my cocoa.

                It always struck me as a massive coincidence - if indeed it really was a coincidence - that the Diary and the Watch should come to light so close to one another, time-wise. This is not to say that I believe Albert Johnson was in on it, as I always accepted your contention that he was as honest as the day's long, and also that he turned down an offer for the Watch of (IIRC) about $40000 from an American collector. (Although I have to confess that it crossed my suspicious mind that Albert could have turned down the offer in case at some future time he was accused of fraud).
                The problem I have, Graham, with the watch being a 'fraud' is that usually this word is used when there is a money motive. Nobody seems to have made any money at all from the watch, least of all Albert, who lost money over it - more than it cost him in the first place. There were no book royalties for him, and he turned down the offer from Texas on the reasonable grounds that if it turned out to be a hoax it would have been wrong to make so much money out of it, while if it was proved genuine it could be priceless, and it was after all bought for his granddaughter, whose interests he'd have kept in mind.

                However, just like yourself I think it would take a very long stretch of the imagination to accept that the Diary and the Watch are not linked in some way; by which I mean in relatively modern times. And it's always struck me as slightly odd that for a long time the Watch seemed to have slipped from under the gaze of those interested in the whole Diary thing. Who owns the Watch now, Caz?
                The same person it was bought for back in 1992 I believe, Graham - Daisy, Albert's granddaughter.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  In the end, the Johnson's agreed to accept £3,000 for the rights of Smith to use it in the Harrison book.
                  My bad, rj. If I knew about this [or worse - if it's in Ripper Diary ] I must have forgotten.

                  That money wouldn't have been Robbie's though, surely? But at least it would have more than compensated Albert for the money he spent towards the testing.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    But if you encourage, plead, beg, and implore someone not to sell something, and they finally agree, it sure seems a little cheesy to come back later and use it as evidence of the man's honesty. At least to me, it does.
                    For my part, I never thought of the above in connection with my own personal experience of Albert. We all know about Mike's dishonesty over the diary, but there is nothing to suggest Albert was similarly dishonest over the watch. How was it remotely dishonest of him, if he did accept £3,000 from Robert Smith, in exchange for his agreement not to sell it to someone else for possibly ten times that amount? Why would anyone in that situation not have done the same thing? If they were dishonest, and couldn't care less about the diary book, but just wanted to make as much as possible out of a 'bandwagon' hoax, they would surely have told Smith to get knotted, no deal.

                    In point of fact, Robbie Johnson was shown to have told two undeniable lies about the watch. When first showing it to Feldman he tried to peddle a story that it had been in the Johnson family for years. Which rather makes him the Anne Graham of the watch. (See Richard Whittington-Egan's book). The second lie was caught-out by Feldman himself. Robbie was playing dumb about the nature of the scratches, apparently momentarily forgetting that he had already given Feldy a complete diagram of them! (See the Final Chapter). If Johnson is on the up and up, why is he lying?
                    You may as well ask, why would Robbie lie if he knew Albert was doing a good enough job of it by himself?

                    How predictable to bring Robbie into this, to lower the tone and try to put a spanner in the watch works. There is no evidence whatsoever that Robbie even knew Albert owned the watch until Albert himself told him about the discovery at the college. So if Albert was not the victim of a motiveless con by his own half-brother, you have to have Albert as the conman.

                    Either way, Robbie is another red herring, dragged from his grave to support a weak theory.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 03-14-2018, 05:24 AM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Caz and rj,

                      I now have Ripper Diary in front of me, and on Pg 78 I read that the Johnsons (plural) had in mind a selling-price for the watch which the prospective buyer Robert Davis thought well above his estimation of the value of an object whose provenance was still open to question. Davis said he was looking at a price in the range $30 - 40000, which begs the question: just how much did 'the Johnsons' think it was worth? How much influence did Robbie have over his brother Albert in this matter, if any?

                      On Pg 79 of the Ripper Diary I read "Were the Johnsons [still plural] so confident that the watch would eventually be proved to be authentic and leapfrog in value or were they just taking a calculated risk that they would get a better price before it was exposed as a fake?" Even though posed as a question, this does seemingly suggest that at least one of the Johnson brothers was looking at the £££'s.

                      Caz, you're obviously the expert here, and I bow humbly to your far greater knowledge of the events and the people in them, but I do get the sense that there might have been more to Robbie that meets the eye.

                      I'm glad that the Watch did eventually end up in the possession of Daisy - some rare good in this whole sorry tale of the Diary and Watch.

                      Graham
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                        Caz, you're obviously the expert here, and I bow humbly to your far greater knowledge of the events and the people in them...
                        I wouldn't say that, Graham, and I know others wouldn't either.

                        ...but I do get the sense that there might have been more to Robbie that meets the eye.
                        Oh yes, I agree, and it's fortunate that it was Albert - not Robbie - who bought the watch and found the scratches, or we'd have had another 'Mike' situation. But even if Robbie was 'on the make' and thought he was looking after Albert's interests, and he'd get his reward in this life if not in heaven, it doesn't mean that either of them was knowingly involved in a recent hoax. What's more, they both returned more than once to the Murphys to pester them with questions about the watch [much like Mike had supposedly pestered someone living in Fountains Road about the diary, but without the supporting evidence for it ], which would have been a pointlessly risky exercise for the person who had hoaxed it. I mean, if Mike hoaxed the diary, using a guardbook he had bought at auction from Outhwaite & Litherland, would he have gone back with it to show them and ask questions about the content? That's what we are expected to believe the Johnsons did with the watch. It's nuts, isn't it?

                        I'm glad that the Watch did eventually end up in the possession of Daisy - some rare good in this whole sorry tale of the Diary and Watch.
                        Indeed, Graham.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 03-15-2018, 04:52 AM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • I wouldn't say that, Graham, and I know others wouldn't either
                          Well, I would....so there.

                          I never implied that Albert (or Robbie) were up to anything suspicious with the Watch; what I was saying was that had they sold the Watch to Davis who then at some future point discovered for sure that it was fake, they could have been on the receiving end of an action for fraud, of which they were totally innocent. I think they did absolutely the right thing by not selling it to Davis (or anyone else).

                          Personally, I think the Watch is in the same dusty little compartment as the Diary - a fake. I've been racking my brains trying to think of any other serial killer who scratched the initials of his victims in a watch - or any other object, for that matter. I could just possibly accept a killer writing some kind of weird testimony, for old time's sake, to be found and gaped at after his death.

                          Graham
                          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                          Comment


                          • Just thought that I’d mention the obvious. It’s incredibly difficult to score handwriting into such a small area and make it vaguely legible let alone match the handwriting of a signature. And then to do it so that expert examination can’t prove it’s not of the time suggested. Not saying it’s real or a fake. Just not something any Tom, Dick or Albert could do
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Hi HS,

                              Try telling that to the sceptics. For the diary to be a modern hoax, the watch has to be one too. I see no possible alternative. That's one of the reasons I just can't get my head round the diary being a modern Barrett hoax.

                              Even otherwise intelligent posters have insisted it would be a doddle for a hoaxer to completely polish out all existing surface scratches [including those seen by Mr Murphy the jeweller] then make those engravings, followed by some more surface scratches and more polishing, to make the whole thing look identical to how it looked in July 1992, so nobody would be suspicious, and then have two experts test them and find nothing inconsistent with them having been put there many decades before.

                              The engravings were found to be underneath all other scratch marks examined, and therefore pre-dating them.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Hi Caz,

                                am re-reading Ripper Diary and enjoying. The other day I came across the finding, in the spine of the Diary, a quantity of black powder which I think Eastaugh cautiously identified as 'bone black', a carbon compound made from incinerated animal bone. This material had many industrial and household applications in Victorian times including, as I recall, an antidote for certain common poisons, including arsenic. I mentioned this on the Forum some time ago, but it wasn't picked up by anyone. Sorry, but I can't recall where I read that bone black was used as an antidote for certain poisons, but I'm sure a search of the net will locate further information. As we know, Maybrick was an arsenic addict, but perhaps it's too far a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the bone black got into the Diary when he was snorting it to alleviate the effects of arsenic.

                                Any comments on this? Was the bone black discussed in any detail at the time of researching your book?

                                Graham
                                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X