Lord Orsam's Blog

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trev,

Not sure what you're on about, but if you think you know the answer, why ask me?

The police got involved in October 1993 and got nowhere. Mike didn't start claiming he'd forged the diary until June 1994, when his personal life was in tatters, and thereafter his various 'confessions' just got more and more bizarre and less coherent and credible as the pain of losing his wife and daughter worsened.

It does strike me that you have only really skimmed the surface of what was happening during that time, and what has been said and written about it. Therefore there doesn't seem much point in my trying to sum it all up for you here. Besides, if you haven't been reasoned into the position you currently hold, you won't be reasoned out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

My position is quite clear, from what I have looked at and that is that Barrett forged the diary just as he said in his affidavit.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz

Hi Gareth,

Where did you get the idea that the electrician would have believed the "old book" was actually written by the killer known as Jack the Ripper

Because the old book talked of cutting up whores and was signed by Jack the Ripper. Whether it was actually yer man or not, it was/is certainly an interesting object.

(I initially wrote "interesting find", but of course I don't think it was found at all )

[Kattrup]

Oh it is the case, Kattrup.

[...]
I'm not clear how you have managed to calculate and compare the number of steps involved in either explanation: Barrett forgery or Battlecrease theft.

I think you’ve misunderstood; you seem to be responding to something other than what I’ve written.

I’ve no particular desire to keep discussing the diary, as doing so mainly permits people with economic interests in it to pretend it’s interesting. Thus propagating the scam for their own benefit.

I was just methodologically puzzled by Paul Butler’s comment and sought an explanation - which I have got, so thanks for that

[Caroline Brown]

My position is quite clear, from what I have looked at and that is that Barrett forged the diary just as he said in his affidavit.

Well I can't help you then, Trev. As I thought, you didn't use reason to reach that position, so you will never be reasoned out of it.

You may as well believe my cat Monty forged it. He whinges whenever I come to this place to read the latest round of 'Mike dunnit' posts. He's miaowing for attention right now, as if to say "I wrote it with my left paw". At least his spelling is better than Mike's.

Love,

Caz & Needy Puss
X

[Caroline Brown]

Hello Caz
Because the old book talked of cutting up whores and was signed by Jack the Ripper. Whether it was actually yer man or not, it was/is certainly an interesting object.

(I initially wrote "interesting find", but of course I don't think it was found at all )

I agree, Gareth, but there are many, many people outside of our tiny community, believe it or not, who do not and would not have had much if any interest, either in the book itself, or in reading its contents. Back in the Spring of 1992, it would have just been an "old book, with old writing in it that was hard to read", as others have described it.

If one such Battlecrease electrician had even bothered to look beyond the first page at that time, and tried to read a few passages, what do you think he'd have made of it, as someone who believes the writing and the language appear strikingly modern for something supposedly Victorian?

Even turning to the last page of writing and seeing the name Jack the Ripper, might not someone's first thought have been that a resident of Liverpool had sat down in the age of the fountain pen and written a piece of fiction about the infamous London murderer? Why should anyone have quickly jumped to the conclusion that this was meant to be a genuine account of the murders as they happened, and that Jack was therefore a Scouser who had once lived in the big house on Riversdale Road?

More to the point, if by chance everyone working in Battlecrease knew the house by that name, along with its Maybrick history, and would have recognised the "old book" for what it was meant to be, what did you expect anyone finding it there to do with it, once they had decided to 'liberate' it from Paul Dodd's house? How could they have hoped to profit from it, no matter how valuable it may have turned out to be? The bigger the price tag, the more information a potential buyer would have needed before parting with a bean. "Who am I buying this from, and where did they get it? An electrician, you say, who only last week helped with a wiring job in the old Maybrick house? Hmmm? And he claims he got it in good faith, but won't say how or when? He's having a laugh!"

But our Mike could ask and ask until he was blue in the face, because for £25 what more could he seriously expect to be told?

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

I think you’ve misunderstood; you seem to be responding to something other than what I’ve written.

I’ve no particular desire to keep discussing the diary, as doing so mainly permits people with economic interests in it to pretend it’s interesting. Thus propagating the scam for their own benefit.

That's very funny, considering that in the immediately preceding post, Gareth had described the diary as 'certainly an interesting object'.

Are you implying that Gareth is only pretending because he has economic interests in it, and is thus propagating the scam for his own benefit?

If, on the other hand, you can allow that Gareth genuinely sees the diary as an interesting object, despite believing it to be a modern scam, and without any economic interests in it, it might be wiser not to throw such accusations around, when you have no evidence for them and not much more idea of who you are accusing.

I was just methodologically puzzled by Paul Butler’s comment and sought an explanation - which I have got, so thanks for that

Does Paul only 'pretend' to be interested in the diary's origins?

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

Hi Caroline

Perhaps I’m not accusing Sam Flynn or Paul Butler of anything, but merely pointing out that some people have a vested interest in the diary being considered interesting.

[Caroline Brown]

My mistake, Kattrup. So what you meant was that Gareth and Paul have been duped into considering the diary interesting, by some unspecified people who have a vested interest in making it seem interesting.

I see.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

Hi again Caroline

Please reread what I wrote and kindly refrain from paraphrasing it, since it invariably introduces odd meanings not intended.

What I wrote is that continued discussion of this non-mystery mainly (which does not mean exclusively) benefits people with economic interests in the continued discussion.

I did not write that people discussing it were duped or whatever, but I understand why you might wish to portray me in a certain manner.

It’s possible to be interested in the diary in the same way that one can be interested in the fake hitler diaries, e.g. how do such scam artists work, what are the techniques that dupe otherwise reasonable people, what makes people impervious to the obvious for decades after merely meeting a sincere- or incompetent-sounding charlatan?

I personally am not very interested in that, my purpose here is to learn more about the Ripper crimes. As the diary is unconnected to JtR, I usually don’t participate in diary threads.

[Sam Flynn]

It’s possible to be interested in the diary in the same way that one can be interested in the fake hitler diaries...

That's pretty much why I'm interested in it.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi again Caroline

Please reread what I wrote and kindly refrain from paraphrasing it, since it invariably introduces odd meanings not intended.

Okay, sorry. I did find it a bit confusing, but should have asked you for clarification. But are you not concerned that by continuing the discussion yourself, you may just be encouraging these people with 'economic interests' in the diary to carry on 'pretending' it's interesting? I'm not entirely sure how you are expecting them to benefit, however, from a tiny group of posters to this website, innocently discussing something which none of us is claiming to be the work of James Maybrick or Jack the Ripper.

It may be a non-mystery for you, but there are many more of us who would be truly interested to learn a) who held the pen and b) when the photo album was turned into the diary, if nothing else. The handwriting cannot be matched to any known individual, alive or dead, and for that reason alone the eleven day Barrett creation miracle was a non-starter.

If only we knew the answers to those questions, we could all disappear, and disappoint anyone insane enough to think they could make fourpence from our continued conversations.

It’s possible to be interested in the diary in the same way that one can be interested in the fake hitler diaries, e.g. how do such scam artists work, what are the techniques that dupe otherwise reasonable people, what makes people impervious to the obvious for decades after merely meeting a sincere- or incompetent-sounding charlatan?

Now you're talking. I'd be very interested to learn how the creator of the Maybrick diary worked and what techniques they used, but we don't even know when the process was going on, whether it was before or after the rise and fall of the hitler diaries. We only know that the pitfalls which quickly doomed the hitler diaries and landed the silly faker in prison, were somehow avoided by whoever created the Maybrick diary. It's all too easy to put that down to 'otherwise reasonable people' allowing themselves to be duped for the next 27 years and counting. Where are the 'otherwise reasonable people' who entertain even the slightest doubt about who faked the hitler diaries or the evidence proving them modern? When were they ever impervious to the 'obvious'?

The difference is stark: the total absence of proof that the Maybrick diary was created by a Barrett, or indeed any of the modern players whose names have been squeezed into the frame by others for whatever personal benefit they thought it might bring them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul Butler]

My mistake, Kattrup. So what you meant was that Gareth and Paul have been duped into considering the diary interesting, by some unspecified people who have a vested interest in making it seem interesting.

I see.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes Caroline.

Some of the stuff being written about the diary certainly makes me chuckle. Barrett lies and lies, he even lies when confessing how he supposedly did it, and still people hang on to the crazy notion that he somehow wrote it himself.

I obviously have absolutely no financial interest in the damned thing, but am intrigued by it still. If anything it's cost me money.

There is a minute chance the author of the diary may one day be identified, better odds than Jack ever being identified at any rate, and to me it's an even better mystery for that reason alone.

If people want to continue to believe Barrett's impossible tales then that's up to them. Why bother to discuss it further?

I, on the other hand, along with a few others like yourself, have a more enquiring mind and am less easily duped.

[Caroline Brown]

Yes Caroline.

Some of the stuff being written about the diary certainly makes me chuckle. Barrett lies and lies, he even lies when confessing how he supposedly did it, and still people hang on to the crazy notion that he somehow wrote it himself.

I obviously have absolutely no financial interest in the damned thing, but am intrigued by it still. If anything it's cost me money.

There is a minute chance the author of the diary may one day be identified, better odds than Jack ever being identified at any rate, and to me it's an even better mystery for that reason alone.

If people want to continue to believe Barrett's impossible tales then that's up to them. Why bother to discuss it further?

I, on the other hand, along with a few others, have a more enquiring mind and am less easily duped.

Agreed, Paul. The only difference is that I did co-author a book on the subject back in 2003, so some will forever presume I was/am in it for the filthy lucre, although I have spent many times more on it as a hobby over the years than I have earned, or would ever have expected to earn if I had given the matter a second thought. Luckily I never needed to, and could dabble without counting the pennies in or out.

I would just add that if I thought, for one single second, that Mike or Anne could have created the diary, or that their eleven day miracle wasn't by a country mile the least plausible explanation for what the diary was doing in Goldie Street, I'd probably have moved on a long time ago. Ditto if I was satisfied that the diary was created by X between the years of Y and Z. I just can't see why people who think they already have the answers would bother to hang around with those of us who know we don't. It's another human puzzle, like the diary story itself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Anna Morris]

A possible possibility I have never seen mentioned is, could workmen have discovered the diary in a wall or crawl space and then somewhere the claim was made it was under the floorboards? The basic answer here is yes, anything is possible. Another possible possibility is someone planted the thing so it came to light during renovations.

As I noted on the other diary thread=> I love the British word "dodgy". Used in a sentence: "Is there any aspect of the diary saga that is not dodgy?"

[Kattrup]

Okay, sorry. I did find it a bit confusing, but should have asked you for clarification. But are you not concerned that by continuing the discussion yourself, you may just be encouraging these people with 'economic interests' in the diary to carry on 'pretending' it's interesting?

Of course, but I try to be polite and respond when someone asks me something

The handwriting cannot be matched to any known individual, alive or dead, and for that reason alone the eleven day Barrett creation miracle was a non-starter.

I don’t think that is an accurate statement; how much of a match is needed and what would you match against while being aware that the forger would have attempted a different handwriting to his/her own? I believe David Orsam posted examples pointing clearly to similarities with Anne Barrett’s writing.

Now you're talking. I'd be very interested to learn how the creator of the Maybrick diary worked and what techniques they used, but we don't even know when the process was going on, whether it was before or after the rise and fall of the hitler diaries. We only know that the pitfalls which quickly doomed the hitler diaries and landed the silly faker in prison, were somehow avoided by whoever created the Maybrick diary.

I think again you’re a bit fluffy on the details. The hitler diaries are actually instructive in this matter. Did they “quickly” land the forger in jail? Not really. The Maybrick diary was exposed as a forgery much sooner.

The difference is stark: the total absence of proof that the Maybrick diary was created by a Barrett, or indeed any of the modern players whose names have been squeezed into the frame by others for whatever personal benefit they thought it might bring them.

I think you must mean the total absence of proof that the Maybrick diary was NOT created by a Barrett etc

The problem is, there’s plenty of proof for the diary’s origins. You just choose to discard it. For instance, you repeatedly state that one cannot use Barrett’s own statements. A selective narrowing of available evidence.

So anyway. The diary has no provenance, the man who brought it to public attention admitted to forging it and we know he wanted to buy a blank Victorian diary. In addition to all the other points about phrases, spellings, ink etc all being compatible with early-1990s forgery. The only mystery here is why anyone would want to keep such a nonmystery going.