Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Sam Flynn]

how do you then account for spelling and punctuation mistakes if he was dictating the text to Anne, as he claimed in his January 1995 affidavit? How would that work?

Perhaps her spelling and punctuation weren't infallible either, Caz. I don't know much about Anne but I've no reason to believe that she was significantly more literate than her spouse. She certainly wasn't averse to committing certain grammatical blunders, as we already seen.

(Seen what I did there? )

Or did Mike choose someone more literate than himself, but less so than the missus

That's possible, of course, but I don't see a particular need to posit such a scenario. Personally, I can't see why the whole thing couldn't have been cooked up chez Barrett, with or without a spousal scribe's involvement.

[caz]

Pinkmoon supposedly met Barrett for the first time in about 1999 of which he said "I first met Mr Barrett a few years after the diary was launched he was in a terrible state due to alcohol abuse he was drinking heavily at the time". Not the best condition to form a judgement about a person.

Interesting. I wonder what condition one would need to be in before David would concede that a judgement could be formed about that person? We have all seen David's tendency to dismiss any judgements formed, about the character, personality, literary or literacy skills of those involved in the diary and watch sagas, by those of us who have actually met and listened extensively and intensively to some of them, as if those judgements are going to be inherently flawed and therefore of no possible relevance or value.

Caz is certainly of the view that Mike wasn't capable but came unstuck when I asked her if Mike and Anne could jointly have been capable of forging the diary. She was unable to provide a sensible response.

I know who is more in danger of coming 'unstuck' and it's not me. Melvin Harris never met Mike or Anne as far as I know, but even he said Mike didn't have the 'capacity' to forge the diary. Nor did he believe that Anne wrote it out to Mike's dictation. He had Mike and Anne down as front men, handling and marketing the work of others. Whether he thought Anne may have composed, or helped compose the text, with occasional input from Mike, I don't know, but he had a third party down as the person who held the pen.

I wonder what Melvin would have made of the theory that the guardbook was only acquired at the end of March 1992 and the diary written into it and completed just a day or two before being shown to the British Museum's curator of 19th century manuscripts and to a specialist on 19th century literature? I think he might have laughed out loud if he'd had the capacity. His own argument was that writing using a Victorian style gallotannic ink couldn't be dated unless it was examined within a year of the ink drying, or at the outside six months, if certain conditions had allowed for it to have stabilised that quickly. He was presumably wrong about this too, and the scribe either knew it or took a complete gamble that they wouldn't come 'unstuck'. Even Baxendale wasn't fool enough to suggest the writing was less than a year old when he examined it, never mind just a couple of months.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The above was posted by me on 23 Jan (#604). It was in response to a claim by the world's leading Diary expert that the Rendell team had concluded that the Diary was written "prior to 1970".

The response to my post by the world's leading Diary expert on 25 Jan was "Fair enough, David" (#644) indicating a full acceptance of what I had said, namely that it was Rod McNeil, not the Rendell team, which said the Diary was written "prior to 1970".

Today, however, I see in another thread that the same person has posted this:

"The Rendell team in the US was hired by diary sceptics, but I don't see anyone suggesting this affected their results or objectivity. In fact, they stuck their neck out with a date for the diary's creation, based on science, finally settling on 'prior to 1970', which Rendell himself went on to undermine by appearing to accept Mike Barrett's claim to have forged it himself!"

It's unbelievable. It was only 3 months ago that this person was accepting that the Rendell team did not settle on a "prior to 1970" date. And so the cycle of misinformation goes on. It's like some computer software that can't be deprogrammed and continues to repeat the same thing, churning out the same old nonsense, regardless of how many times it is corrected.

Rod McNeil, a scientist, gave his professional opinion, while working as one of Rendell's team, that pen met paper 'prior to 1970'.

Q: Was Rendell a scientist?

Perhaps David can tell us.

Q: Was Rendell's personal opinion, that the diary was "written very recently, probably within a year before its announced "discovery"" based on his own, or anyone else's scientific findings?

Perhaps David can tell us that too.

Q: Did Rendell offer this opinion from 1994 before or after Mike's first claim to have written it himself? [I'm pretty sure I asked this before but can't recall seeing any response.]

Perhaps David can tell us that too - or remind us.

But if Rendell's personal opinion had no scientific basis, perhaps David can explain its relevance to a minor discussion on another thread about which professional scientists will put their jobs and reputations on the line to produce the desired result for whoever's paying them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

She certainly wasn't averse to committing certain grammatical blunders, as we already seen.

(Seen what I did there? )

Correction. That should of course read "See what I done there"

[caz]

I can't see that many scratches would spontaneously appear on the inside back of a gold watch, even 100+ years after its manufacture, so perhaps there weren't (m)any scratches there when the "Mabyrick" writing was laid down. Once it was, the distressing/aging process would have created its own set of scratches which, naturally, the "Maybrick" writing would have lain beneath.

Hi Gareth,

There weren't any scratches on that surface when the Maybrick signature and 'I am Jack' were carved into it - which is merely consistent with the carver being the first person to cause any scratches at all. It doesn't tell us whether that was in 1888 or 1993, or at any point in between, but a hoaxer working in 1993 would have had to cause all the overlying scratch marks, including those referred to as superficial, those resembling repair marks and any caused by apparent attempts to scour away at the Maybrick/ripper markings beneath.

We're back to the testimony of the Murphys, and what reason Ron Murphy would have had to lie about not only seeing several scratch marks on that surface in early 1992, but trying to buff them out. For the watch to be a 1993 Johnson hoax, on the back of a 1992 Barrett one, don't you have to explore and try to explain Murphy's motivation for saying what he did? Or is he just collateral damage?

And incidentally, before David pipes up, I'm not remotely bothered if Murphy did acquire the watch from his father-in-law, who in turn acquired it from a stranger who came into his shop several years before 1992. It's where that stranger got it from that really matters - or should have done to anyone seeing J.O. on the back and deciding to use the watch for forgery purposes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

There weren't any scratches on that surface when the Maybrick signature and 'I am Jack' were carved into it

I can't imagine that many scratches would accumulate on part of a gold watch that had been largely covered up for most of its lifetime, Caz. That said, I can't see how we can know categoricallly that there were no scratches present prior to the initials, unless the watch had been microscopically examined before the engravings were made.

but a hoaxer working in 1993 would have had to cause all the overlying scratch marks, including those referred to as superficial

I don't have a problem with that. Different passes of the "aging" process would create a variety scratch-marks anyway, particularly if more than one abrasive tool/substance were used (thanks, Phil!).

[David Orsam]

That said, I can't see how we can know categoricallly that there were no scratches present prior to the initials, unless the watch had been microscopically examined before the engravings were made.

I think it's based on a misreading of Turgoose's report. He did say this:

"all the superficial scratches are later than all the engraving."

Taken out of context it might seem that he was saying that there were no superficial scratches on the watch before the engraving, and I think this is how it has been read. In his conclusion, however, he makes clear that this can't possibly be what he was saying because he hadn't examined all the superficial scratches on the watch. Thus he says:

"it is clear that the engravings predate the vast majority of the superficial surface scratches (all of those examined)".

[David Orsam]

From what hasn't been said on the forum today it is perfectly clear that Albert was NOT asked the obvious question: "Who did you tell about the watch?"

And the same person puzzles over why it didn't occur to Mike didn't ask Paul to ask Eddie....blah blah blah....

[David Orsam]

If anyone wants a great example of classic Diary Defending distraction techniques we have had one today.

In response to John G's claim that two people who met Mike don't think he had the capacity to write the diary (one of whom was pinkmoon) I made the very simple point to John G that pinkmoon was in no position to form a judgement on Mike's capacity bearing in mind that he met him when he was in a "terrible state" due to alcohol abuse and was "drinking heavily".

That was a straightforward and unanswerable point and, in fact, it has not been answered. Being unable to contradict this obvious statement the tactic is then to attack me personally and make a false statement about my views. Thus

"We have all seen David's tendency to dismiss any judgements formed, about the character, personality, literary or literacy skills of those involved in the diary and watch sagas, by those of us who have actually met and listened extensively and intensively to some of them"

Leaving aside that this is completely irrelevant to the point I was making about pinkmoon, we have not all seen my tendency to dismiss any judgements formed by those who have met and listened "extensively and intensively" or otherwise, nor could any reasonable person have thought I was doing any such thing. It is a false statement.

A point I have consistently made is that anyone who met Mike in the years after 1992, during a time when he was actually hospitalized for alcohol abuse, is hardly going to be able to form a reasonable view of his abilities prior to 1992.

As for Anne, well so many people who met her believed her story and these turn out to be the same people who now tell us she must have been lying all along!!! Go figure.

[David Orsam]

Today must be Groundhog Day considering the repeats of all the old arguments that have been done to death.

Today we are told that "Even Baxendale wasn't fool enough to suggest the writing was less than a year old when he examined it, never mind just a couple of months."

Yet, according to the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993, "Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years".

That time period incorporates any time from 1989 to 1992.

But today's posts simply confirm my suspicion that some people simply do not understand the science of dating inks and fail to appreciate that it's literally impossible to identify the date ink has been put onto paper. A solubility test can do no more than say if the ink is recent or not and that's it.

[David Orsam]

This one cracks me up about Melvin Harris:

"His own argument was that writing using a Victorian style gallotannic ink couldn't be dated unless it was examined within a year of the ink drying, or at the outside six months, if certain conditions had allowed for it to have stabilised that quickly."

The ONLY person to examine the diary within six months of April 1992 was Baxendale.

And when was the next solubility test conducted on the diary? It's not ever clear if anyone ever did one, certainly not within a year or six months of the ink drying.

[David Orsam]

We go round and round again. I already dealt with the views of Melvin Harris back in September 2016. Here is what I said:

"I can only go by what Melvin Harris has put in writing and I note that he said of Barrett in 'A Fact File for the Perplexed' (with my bold highlighting):

"I never at any time believed that he was the sole creator of this forgery, but he did have inside knowledge…"

If, however, he said he was merely a "front man" but you don't accept it, why should I or anyone else accept his opinion that Barrett did not have the capacity to forge the diary?

And are you saying that Harris opined that neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary? If so, where did he say this?"

To which the feeble response was:

"There is no reason why you, or anyone else, should accept Melvin's opinion on anything. Be my guest and accept or reject at will. I do. Few people are right or wrong about everything.

Wrote as in penned. I believe Harris had Anne down as composer of the text (ha ha) and I do remember him clarifying on the boards once upon a time that he had both Barretts down as handlers and pushers but the handwriting was not theirs.

Again, please feel free to take it or leave it."

To which I responded:

"...what I'm really trying to establish is: what are the reasons for thinking that Mike and Anne did not compose the Diary, whether it's you, me, Harris or anyone else doing the thinking?

If the main reason is that Mike is not believed to have had the 'capacity' prior to May 1992 then what is the basis of this belief?

And what about Anne? Why the "ha ha" in your email when it comes to her as composer of the text?"

The long response to that was as follows:

"Very many apologies for my tardy - and necessarily brief - response. You would really need to have had personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick, to get a proper insight into what they may, or may not, have been willing to do, or capable of doing, in respect of the damned diary. There is also the watch, of course, about which the Barretts always claimed total ignorance. Mike never suggested he masterminded that in addition to the diary, for instance.

Their personalities, combined with examples of their handwriting and creative writing skills, have given me no confidence in their ability - individually or together - to have produced anything like the diary as we know it, but of course that doesn't mean they could not both have been living a charade for years, even decades, to put investigators, friends, associates and family members off the scent. So in that respect, no amount of published, verified examples of their handiwork is likely to convince those who were suspicious to begin with and remain so all these years later.

If none of the above changes anything for you, I can only add that I have absolute faith in Keith Skinner's research skills, his objectivity and integrity, and I do know what his Battlecrease provenance is based on (I have been right there from the start of the 'new' investigation, following publication of our Ripper Diary) and completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling."

This was the very chain which led into a discussion of what Keith Skinner's current views about the Battlecrease provenance were and, as we have seen in this thread, they are by no means as strongly held as we were led to believe - and he certainly does not find the evidence "compelling" in the normally understood sense of the word.

In short, I have never received a sensible response as to why Mike or Anne, singly or jointly, did not have the capacity to compose the Diary.

[David Orsam]

It's incredible. I made a very simple point, a very simple correction, namely that the Rendell team did NOT settle on a "prior to 1970" date as had been claimed. And I was, of course, right because that was a date settled on by just one member of the Rendell team.

All that needed to happen was a graceful acceptance of that fact.

Instead, in an obvious distraction technique, we get one irrelevant question after another about the basis of Rendell's personal beliefs. Questions that need to be addressed to Rendell, not me, because I'm neither a mindreader nor Rendell's spokesman.

And then, not having mentioned Rendell's personal beliefs, I'm supposed to explain what relevance they have to another discussion!!! Absolutely incredible.

[caz]

Perhaps her spelling and punctuation weren't infallible either, Caz. I don't know much about Anne but I've no reason to believe that she was significantly more literate than her spouse. She certainly wasn't averse to committing certain grammatical blunders, as we already seen.

(Seen what I did there? )

Nice one, Gareth. But I also 'seen' why you felt the need to explain, in case anyone who didn't know you, and had not read any of your other written work, might have analysed your post and concluded your grammar was poor [and I don't mean that your grandma never had two ha'pennies to rub together ].

The fact is, I often find myself slipping into 'common' in casual conversation, depending on the circumstances, and the locals here in Sidmouth think I talk Cockney. But when I'm communicating in writing and being serious about it I try my best, with my A grade O level in English language from 1970, not to let myself down. Anne worked as a secretary, so unless she was considerably more literate than Mike was, bless him, I'm not sure how she'd have held down a job like that for long. It would have been pretty much a basic requirement, probably more so than for other lowly clerical posts such as filing clerks and office juniors. Martin Fido was surprised, if Anne helped forge the diary, that she allowed it to go out like that. But if she had written it out herself to Mike's dictation [as secretaries used to do when their boss dictated anything], it would have been down to her alone to make sure the spelling, punctuation and grammar [if not the handwriting!] was - WERE suitable for the purposes of forging the diary of James Maybrick. Did she not posses - POSSESS - a dictionary, for example? Did she not think to consult one?

One more question: is there an art to disguising one's normal handwriting, using an old-fashioned dip pen and ink, or can anyone do it with a bit of practice? I've not tried it myself, so I have no idea how I'd go about it or how it might turn out on the page, never mind 63 of the buggers, but I'd find it pretty daunting if my better half finally managed to find a book that was 'suitable for forgery purposes', an ink and dip pen that were equally 'suitable for forgery purposes' and then told me to get on with it and not to make an amateurish mess of it, because he wanted to show it off in London in a few days' time as definitely not my own work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see why the scribe couldn't have had several practice runs with the pen long before the guard book was acquired, Caz.

"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy Battlecrease dog... Jackdaws love my sphinx of green Abberline quartz... All at once I seen a crowd, a host of golden daffodils... etc"