Maybrick diary

[Trevor Marriott]

If you accept that Barrett's dates were two years out (despite always retaining a perfect recall of the date April 13, 1992) and if you suspect that Anne Graham's and Lynne Barrett's flat-out contradictions of his claims were lies, then you can maintain the facade that Barrett's 1995 affidavit is magically more 'true' than his 1993 one. It is solely our lack of 'being there when it actually happened' which means we can't be certain that Anne Graham and Lynne Barrett did not lie. And Outhwaite & Litherland - we have to accept that Barrett got their process right and they themselves got their process wrong: hardly seems likely, unless you have a determined eye to see it that way?

So Bongo claimed they were struggling to pay the mortgage (but Anne's salary could easily cover that - as proven by her May 1992 bank statement) - but that's okay because you can just invent the possibility (as Lord Orsam has done) that Mike was in great debt and it was a net negative sum between their two bank accounts and it was Mike's debts that they decided to pay not the debt that kept a roof over their heads and over the head of their precious daughter Caroline.

And you have to just overlook the fact that Mr and Mrs Barrett - who loved daughter Caroline above all else - would risk putting her in mortal danger by running the risk of being imprisoned for fraud. What you can do, Trevor, is just decide that Anne Graham's crime of writing down the text of an artefact she knowingly allowed to be fostered onto the general public at their cost would not have caused her to suffer incarceration. The judge would just have let her off, you see. And she knew this for certain before she helped her husband commit fraud!

And that's just off the top of my head ...

I think the truth of it, Trevor, is that you would ignore or selectively interpret anything which doesn't help the horse you don't have in the race win it.

I am aware that Barret is quoted as saying a lot of things which may be true or false but that doesn't detract from the fact that in 1995 he made a sworn statement setting out in great detail how he forged the diary. A statement that has never proved to be false. He didn't need to do that because he could have stuck with the initial account that he had been given it by Deveraux, and he must have known that by self-incriminating himself and Anne in a criminal offence of fraud by misrepresentation as to what the implications would have been when there was no need to make up this story which is what you and others keep saying he did, but can offer no plausible explanation other than wild speculative guesses for his actions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris Phillips]

It's all in the interpretation, though, isn't it? What you see as 'damning', I see as consistent: if the letter was missed when it should have been "pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered", then it might logically follow that there would be a high probability that it also might be missed when it should otherwise have been micro-filmed. Perhaps the reason for the first provides a simple reason for the second?

So we just need to keep an open mind around what is both possible and plausible and not allow our instincts to turn into opinions which might unduly influence those who end up reading our thoughts when we commit them to the internet.

I'm afraid what you're saying doesn't make sense at all,

It should have been stamped in 1888 when it was received. The microfilming was done in the late 1980s. The claim is that in 1988 the letter that was in a folder that was "stuck with age". No connection at all between the omission of a stamp and the omission from the microfilm.

Unfortunately the Diary nonsense tends to pollute the rest of Ripperology. I don't believe anyone would be wasting a moment on this fake letter if they weren't motivated by belief in the fake Diary.

[Jay Hartley]

I am aware that Barret is quoted as saying a lot of things which may be true or false but that doesn't detract from the fact that in 1995 he made a sworn statement setting out in great detail how he forged the diary. A statement that has never proved to be false. He didn't need to do that because he could have stuck with the initial account that he had been given it by Deveraux, and he must have known that by self-incriminating himself and Anne in a criminal offence of fraud by misrepresentation as to what the implications would have been when there was no need to make up this story which is what you and others keep saying he did, but can offer no plausible explanation other than wild speculative guesses for his actions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Round and round we go.

[Trevor Marriott]

Round and round we go.

Well get off the roundabout and address he questions instead of side stepping then all the time

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[R. J. Palmer]

And you have to just overlook the fact that Mr and Mrs Barrett - who loved daughter Caroline above all else - would risk putting her in mortal danger by running the risk of being imprisoned for fraud.

I do love the melodramatic touch of 'mortal danger.' It's a little-known fact that the penalty for perpetrating a hoax in the UK is the execution of one's children.

[Chris Phillips]

I had an idea that someone said it had actually been tested, but the results were being withheld pending publication. But maybe I am misremembering.

Thankfully I wasn't misremembering it. Actually there was quite a bit of discussion on this site about Patricia Cornwell's testing of this letter, starting here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/letters-from-hell-or-thereabouts/2978-what-a-pretty-necklace?p=57230#post57230

[R. J. Palmer]

Thankfully I wasn't misremembering it. Actually there was quite a bit of discussion on this site about Patricia Cornwell's testing of this letter, starting here:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/lett...7230#post57230

Be careful what you're thankful for! :-)

Personally, I found the thread rather depressing to read after all these years. Evidently 'Mac the Knife' was Peter McClelland himself.

Anyway, it did inspire me to check-out Patricia Cornwell's second book this afternoon.

I'll post what she wrote about the forensic examination on the original thread--'What a Pretty Necklace.'

Warning: read it at your own risk!

[Caroline Brown]

This should be kept in mind when reflecting on the investigation of the Maybrick Hoax by Scotland Yard's Serious Fraud Unit. That the CPS ultimately declined to prosecute anyone in that case doesn't mean there weren't entirely legitimate suspicions or even circumstantial evidence--just as there would later be against Allen.

The difference here is that Allen seems to have been the only one with an opportunity to plant the fake documents. In the case of Mike Barrett and Robert Smith, it would have been impossible to prosecute the latter for fraud, without proof that Mike was responsible for the diary's creation or, at the very least, knew who was. Any allegation that Robert was knowingly publishing a modern fake could not have stood up without evidence that Mike had knowingly offered him one.

Here's what Stewart Evans wrote about the 17 September hoax in a letter to The Ripperologist:

"Likewise the contemporary reports leave absolutely no doubts as to the origin of the name 'Jack the Ripper' and that was the 'Dear Boss' letter received by the Central News agency on 27 September, 1888, There is no evidence of its currency prior to its publication on 1 October, 1888. The 'Jack the Ripper' note dated 17 Sept, 1888, quoted in Paul Feldman's book, is a childish modern production (Keith Skinner and I have examined the original at the PRO) and appears to be written in blue ballpoint! The file it was inserted into (presumably by someone wanting to make his own mark in the field, planting it to be found and assumed to be genuine) is HO/221/A49301C, which is a home office file that contains no other letters. Also there is no covering report or official comment on it whatsoever. It was just inserted on its own. The PRO are extremely dubious about it and as far as I know they are looking into it."

The question is, who had the opportunity to plant this 'childish modern production', and to what end? Stewart seemed to imply that the only person who could have made his own mark in the field, by 'discovering' this previously unknown ripper letter, would have been the one who faked and planted it. But where is the connection with the Barretts, who remain the only suspected fakers of the Maybrick diary? I'm not seeing the link, if there is one.

[Caroline Brown]

Why after all this time has Anne not gone public to confirm your belief after all Barrett is no longer with us?

I don't know, Trev. She hasn't 'gone public' to confirm or deny anything as far as I can see.

And more importantly, and I apologise for keep bringing it up but why did Barrett go and make the 1995 Affadvit if the content was totally fictitious surely he must have realised that firstly he was implicating Anne in a potential criminal offence, and that the content would be closely scrutinized as it has been over the years, yet the content cannot be disproved.

Mike was implicating Anne, and their only child, and Anne's deceased father, and Mike's deceased friend, along with himself. He was a broken man by January 1995, just a month after Anne had divorced him. He was never to see his daughter again. The diary was the only 'weapon' he had left to lash out with, but he miscalculated because Anne was trying to rebuild her life by then and couldn't give a damn about his silly accusations. She knew they had no substance and couldn't hurt her. If people she didn't know and would never meet took them seriously, that was up to them.

There are two sides to show whether or not the diary is a fake
Firstly the modern-day tests and the expert's, opinion which from what I have read do all concur that it is a fake
Secondly disproving the content of the 1995 Affidavit which cannot be conclusively proved to be false

That leads us to who was responsible for the faking and all roads lead us back to Barrett and his 1995 admission

And if he hadn't made that affidavit? All roads would still have led you back to Barrett. As someone called RJ Palmer observed, Barrett gave people 'the green light' by accusing himself in that affidavit. If none of his nasty, vengeful allegations against the individuals identified within its pages can be conclusively proved to be true, they all have the right to be presumed innocent.

As a former policeman, you ought to understand that much.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

If anyone cares--and no one should care--I addressed this over on Casebook.org on a thread titled The Diary--Old Hoax of New? I hope that ends the matter.

Oh, goody. I will catch up with the Maybrick saga in 'the other place' as time allows, but time is not being very helpful lately.

Luckily, I doubt the handwriting issue will be resolved in my continued absence, so I won't worry that I might be missing something.