top of page
Search
  • Lord Orsam

The Secret Ripper Diary Extracts

All the talk of using colours to determine authorship of the diary made me think of Mike Barrett's supposed attempt to replicate the diary author's style in a number of pages which were given to by Mike to Keith Skinner in March 2002 (claimed by Mike to be a transcript of actual missing diary pages). How well did he do?


The authors of Inside Story didn't think he had done very well because, in their 2003 book, they boldly stated that the content of those pages, which they didn't bother to reproduce for their readers, 'in truth, bore no resemblance to that of the Diary'. The problem, however, was that those authors (one of whom has special magical abilities to see words in colours) were obviously fooled by the fact that the pages were in Mike's handwriting (jumbling up capital and lower case letters) with his poor spelling and grammar. They evidently forgot that if Anne had been holding the pen, writing the words in the diary at Mike's dictation, she would have been able to correct those mistakes, at least to the best of her somewhat limited ability, and the handwriting would have been perfect.


Once the appropriate adjustments are made, this is what we get:



I defy anyone to tell me that the above is not similar in style to what we find the diary itself. Heck, the colours may even be the same!


Even Tom Mitchell, the Assistant to the Chief Diary Defender, agrees with me. He admitted in a JTR Forums post on 24 August 2022 that Mike's 'diary' pages, 'do indeed reflect the language of the Victorian scrapbook', and that:


'There's not a line written which doesn't sound like a line used in the scrapbook.'



For anyone reading this who is genuinely interested in the diary, it is to be noted that the 'diary' passage transcribed above, which we know for a fact was written by Mike Barrett (a former professional freelance journalist in case anyone has forgotten), represents only about 30% of what Mike handed over to Keith Skinner in 2002. The remaining 70% is being ruthlessly suppressed and withheld in typical diary defender fashion. The laughable excuse Tom Mitchell gave for keeping it secret was that the three pages he did reveal sufficiently confirm that Mike was able to reproduce the diarist's style so that, in his opinion, no more are needed, even though when he published those three pages in July 2020, it was to demonstrate that Mike was incapable of writing the diary.


There can't be any doubt that Mitchell released the three least impressive pages written by Mike because the intention was for us to laugh at them. Indeed, after Mitchell had posted one page, the Chief Diary Defender herself encouraged him, on 23 July 2020, to post 'more of Bongo's early DAiry work - particularly relating to CRicket weather'.


As we can see, she was still obsessed with Mike jumbling up his capital and lower case letters even though that could have no relevance to the authorship of the diary if written by Anne.


Of course, having been ordered to do so by his superior, Mitchell immediately complied and posted the page about cricket later that same day.


The wheeze having now rebounded on him, with his confession that all the lines sound exactly like they could have come from the diary, he's clammed up and no more pages have been forthcoming even though, in the current debate about Mike's writing ability, it would be extremely useful to see exactly what Mike was capable of.


Everyone needs to see those pages.


But no one can. Censorship is in place. The withheld pages are classified as top secret 'diary' pages even though there is literally no good reason for their suppression. Mitchell has them, he's allowed to post them, he just doesn't want to. It's yet another tragic example of diary defender document suppression.



LORD ORSAM

2 December 2023






144 views15 comments

Recent Posts

See All

15 Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
Guest
Dec 14, 2023
Rated 5 out of 5 stars.

Good Lord. Tom Mitchell is now referring to Barrett's role in the Diary saga as an "intervention." The "nightmarish intervention of Michael Barrett into the Maybrick scrapbook's emergence into the light of day."


(A none too subtle allusion to Paul Dodd's floorboards)


Did the diary have a drink problem? Why did it need an intervention?


Instead of purple posturing, why can't Tom do something useful and upload the other samples of Barrett's writing? When Keith first made this announcement back in 2002, Barrett said there were 40 "new" pages of the diary. Where is the rest of it? What exactly did Barrett hand over? Keith's original statement is somewhat odd as reported by Caroline Morris (Brown) back in Mar…


Like
Lord Orsam
Dec 14, 2023
Replying to

The exact number of pages is a bit of a mystery. Inside Story says (p. 271) that Mike handed over ten handwritten pages to Keith Skinner in March 2002, and, when Tom posted one of them on 22 July 2020 (Incontrovertible, #5631), he said that it was an actual example of what Mike had claimed were "the first ten pages" of the diary. But when he returned to the subject on JTR Forums on 24 August 2022 (Maybrick diary, #166), he now referred to "Mike's eleven pages" and spoke of the "other eight" pages in his possession (over and above the three pages he had posted on Casebook) which he was refusing to reveal. So is it ten or eleven?…


Like

Guest
Dec 04, 2023

Jay Hartley writes: "He did engage Stanley Dangar to see if he could replicate the scientific results and he could not. In fact, in the end Dangr [sic] was convinced both the watch and diary were genuine."


I heard a different 'take' from Peter Birchwood, who knew Dangar personally and stayed with him in Spain. I imagine the Diary believers will dismiss what I write, but according to Birchwood, he floated the idea that he and Dangar should write an exposé of the Maybrick Hoax, and a cynical Dangar said, "there's no money in that!" (ie., there's no money in exposing a hoax---only in promoting one.) Birchwood was appalled, and (if I recall) the two men argued, and their cooperatio…


Like
Guest
Dec 10, 2023
Replying to

My apologies. This is off topic, as was Jay Hartley's original post, but I wonder what his source is (since he doesn't give one) for the claim that "in the end [Stanley] Dangar was convinced both the watch and diary were genuine."


Dangar died in July 2002, shortly before 'Ripper Diary' was published. That book still refers to Dangar as a 'Diary skeptic.' The authors do state that Dangar and Harris had a falling out, and Harris 'fired' him; afterwards (in what sounds like a case of sour grapes) Dangar then told Shirley Harrison that he could not name those who faked the watch because "it was not a modern forgery but it can't be accurately dated' (p. 234)


That's…


Like

Guest
Dec 03, 2023

Hello David. It's great to see you catch up with the modern world with a new look website. I read your posts occasionally because it is important to consider opposing positions. Of course, I disagree with almost everything you post, but that will not shock you or your followers. On this subject, I cannot believe you are seriously proposing the above extract is a true reflection of the type of writing that is consistent with what is in the scrapbook. I don't need the ability to see words as colours to see the tone and use of language is completely different. Have you much experience in writing or at least reading fiction? Every writer has their own voice, which Caroline…

Like
Lord Orsam
Dec 03, 2023
Replying to

Thing is, Jay, you are saying things that simply aren’t true.  For example, you just posted: “I recall “top myself” was included on your list and that was eventually debunked”.  You do not recall this because it didn’t happen. I never mentioned “top myself” prior to the discovery of a 19th century newspaper example.  Starting in 2016, the only anachronism I relied on to disprove the diary’s authenticity was ‘one off instance’.  Then The Baron discovered ‘bumbling buffoon”.  You’ve obviously been under a misapprehension for many years that I once relied on ‘top myself’ then dropped it.  It ain’t true and is a false narrative you’ve constructed in your head.  ‘One off instance’ proves the diary is a fake, so,…

Like
bottom of page