Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    Jeremy Beadle was one of the nicest human beings one could have had the pleasure of meeting. Gone far too soon.
    Agreed on both counts.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • If Mike had thoughts along similar lines, one thing he could have done to test his own suspicions before heading to London and making a complete tit of himself, was to look into the availability of genuinely old diaries with enough blank pages for a prank of this nature.
      All perfectly unfalsifiable and reasonable suggestions, Caz, but the inherent contradiction should be noted:

      (a) - There's no problem with Mike making a call to London literally within hours of the floorboards coming up in Maybrick's bedroom, and quite possibly for all we know, within an hour of seeing the Diary for the first time himself: all perfectly normal to make that call before spending even one evening studying the thing and reading it through carefully.

      (b) - Mike was cautious, suspicious, investigative, and ordered himself a blank or partially blank Victorian diary because he harbored doubts about the thing and didn't want to beclown himself over it with the bigshots down in that London.

      I won't be the only one to find this pretzel logic less than persuasive, dear Caz, though I know you're only putting it forward as a hypothetical suggestion. But in any case, at least there's the old reliable fall-back position: crazy Mike Barrett, unpredictable loose-cannon Mike Barrett - who can say why he did or said anything, right?

      I come back to this, until something solid takes me past it -

      (a) It's highly unlikely that a man should come to possess the diary of Jack the Ripper.
      (b) Mike Barrett claimed he had come to possess the diary of Jack the Ripper.
      (c) Mike Barrett had gone to some lengths to acquire a blank or partially blank Victorian diary.

      Just sayin' !

      Thanks for the reply, Caz.

      PS - What is all this Chelsea crap flooding the thread? This very irritated LFC fan is getting rather prickly about it today. And by the way, before anyone makes any smart comments, Swansea are clearly one of the most organized, disciplined, skillful teams in the PL, and I fully expect them to finish top six. *cough*

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post
        It seemed that Henry F. is under the impression that Mike went looking for a Victorian diary before he contacted Doreen Montgomery - whereas the evidence suggests it was [I]after[I] he made the telephone call on March 9th 1992.
        In point of fact, Keith, there is no evidence which suggests when Mike went looking for a Victorian diary or whether it was before or after his telephone call on 9th March 1992. To be able to say one way or the other, we would need to know the date when he instructed Martin Earl to obtain one on his behalf but, as I mentioned in my previous post, this has not been established. While I personally think it most likely that Mike made the call first and then instructed Earl this is mere supposition on my part. But I think it would have been uncontroversial for Henry to have asked this question:

        Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before producing the Jack the Ripper Diary?

        I'm looking forward to reading the answer.

        Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post

        Bookdealer stated on their compliment slip to Keith :-

        “This issue went to press on the 12th March 1992. The previous issue would have gone to press on the 5th March 1992. Therefore, the copy had to have been received by us, either via the post or by fax, some time between the 6th and 12th March, 1992. The ad only appeared in this issue – it was not in Issue No 1043, nor in Issue No 1045.”
        Well that may be what they said to you in 2004 but in 1992 their instructions to dealers (posted in full below) seem to me to be perfectly clear. They state:

        "Lists to appear only once should be addressed to Bookdealer, PO Box 1082, Winscombe, Avon BS24 6BX to arrive first post Wednesday for inclusion in next week's issue."

        There is no indication in the instructions that any other method of transmission is acceptable.

        In early 1992, Martin Earl's advertisements in Book and Magazine Collector and his entries in Bookdealer contain two telephone numbers but no fax number (which is not to say he didn't have one). Given the relatively poor quality of fax transmissions that I remember in the early 1990s, I would have thought that, for the purposes of accuracy, most dealers would have wanted to post their lists in hard copy format. Perhaps emergency late requests were accepted by fax but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case in the instructions, as you can see.

        One other thing about Bookdealer's instructions is that it is stated that lists were printed in the next issue "Strictly in the order received". In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 156. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • Did the "Rendell team" conclude that pen went on paper 'prior to 1970'? I don't think so.

          The 11 page "Report on the Diary of Jack The Ripper" produced by K.W. Rendell in September 1993 referred to the the conclusion of Rod McNeil and his ion migration test that the diary was written in 1921 (plus or minus 12 years).

          However, it was Rod McNeil individually, not the "Rendell team" who then stated in October 1993 that his opinion was that the diary was "created prior to 1970" while adding that "as with any scientific test there is always the possibility of error associated either with the operator or the techniques himself".

          Possibly this backtracking by McNeil damaged the credibility of his ion migration test with the "Rendell team" for Rendell published a book in 1994 entitled "Forging History" in which he said that the diary was "written very recently, probably within a year before its announced "discovery"".

          Therefore, I don't think it's proper for anyone to say in a post that the Rendell team concluded, rightly or wrongly, that pen went on paper 'prior to 1970'.

          Comment


          • It's amusing to read yet another speculative and unsupported theory produced for Mike's acquisition of a blank Victorian diary in 1992. We've gone, over the past year, from the bonkers and nonsensical to the more bonkers and nonsensical to the theoretically possible and now back to the (even more) bonkers and nonsensical. I don't think there is even any need for me to demonstrate why this latest theory is bonkers and nonsensical, it's self-explanatory, so I think we can ignore it as I somehow doubt we'll ever see it mentioned again.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              In point of fact, Keith, there is no evidence which suggests when Mike went looking for a Victorian diary or whether it was before or after his telephone call on 9th March 1992. To be able to say one way or the other, we would need to know the date when he instructed Martin Earl to obtain one on his behalf but, as I mentioned in my previous post, this has not been established. While I personally think it most likely that Mike made the call first and then instructed Earl this is mere supposition on my part. But I think it would have been uncontroversial for Henry to have asked this question:

              Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before producing the Jack the Ripper Diary?

              I'm looking forward to reading the answer.



              Well that may be what they said to you in 2004 but in 1992 their instructions to dealers (posted in full below) seem to me to be perfectly clear. They state:

              "Lists to appear only once should be addressed to Bookdealer, PO Box 1082, Winscombe, Avon BS24 6BX to arrive first post Wednesday for inclusion in next week's issue."

              There is no indication in the instructions that any other method of transmission is acceptable.

              In early 1992, Martin Earl's advertisements in Book and Magazine Collector and his entries in Bookdealer contain two telephone numbers but no fax number (which is not to say he didn't have one). Given the relatively poor quality of fax transmissions that I remember in the early 1990s, I would have thought that, for the purposes of accuracy, most dealers would have wanted to post their lists in hard copy format. Perhaps emergency late requests were accepted by fax but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case in the instructions, as you can see.

              One other thing about Bookdealer's instructions is that it is stated that lists were printed in the next issue "Strictly in the order received". In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 156. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.
              Mr Orsam, you remain absolutely indispensable. And if your indefatigability irritates the odd yay-sayer here and there, well, all the better.

              One thing that I find quite compelling is the fact that the diary MB got hold of was too small for his purposes, he claims. And indeed we have confirmation that it is too small. And having been frustrated in this, and being pressed for time, the Diary appears not in a diary at all, but in a denuded scrapbook, which is of course larger than many a diary. That ties together MB and the Diary logically and consistently for me far more completely than a word I've read so far about the floorboards or the timesheets.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                Mr Orsam, you remain absolutely indispensable. And if your indefatigability irritates the odd yay-sayer here and there, well, all the better.

                One thing that I find quite compelling is the fact that the diary MB got hold of was too small for his purposes, he claims. And indeed we have confirmation that it is too small. And having been frustrated in this, and being pressed for time, the Diary appears not in a diary at all, but in a denuded scrapbook, which is of course larger than many a diary. That ties together MB and the Diary logically and consistently for me far more completely than a word I've read so far about the floorboards or the timesheets.
                Indeed. And how many absurd "scenarios" have we had to date as to why Mike Barrett bought the red Victorian diary? Four ? Five?

                I have always been of the opinion that it's possible that Mike Barrett was accurate in his dating for the acquisition of the photo album/diary, that is, late January 1990. I believe the idea for the hoax took shape on the 100th anniversary of the ripper murders in 1988, and the subsequent 100th anniversary of the Maybrick murder in 1889. It's possible the finished article was completed by January 1990, and Mike Barrett went ahead and bought the photo album/diary in an attempt to use it to perpetrate the hoax. I believe Barrett decided that the photo album/diary was not fit for purpose, and decided against using it. It's possible he abandoned the venture, but in March 1992 decided to give it another go, and so he bought the red leather Victorian diary. Finding that this diary was too small for purpose, he again turned to the original photo album/diary he had bought in 1990, and decide to use that. The rest is history.

                Just to add, by the time he had paid for the second diary, he had forked out £75 for the two diaries. Not wanting to throw more money away by purchasing a third diary, and realising it could be quite some time before he could source a suitable diary, if it was at all possible, he decided to use the original photo album/diary.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                  Indeed. And how many absurd "scenarios" have we had to date as to why Mike Barrett bought the red Victorian diary? Four ? Five?

                  I have always been of the opinion that it's possible that Mike Barrett was accurate in his dating for the acquisition of the photo album/diary, that is, late January 1990. I believe the idea for the hoax took shape on the 100th anniversary of the ripper murders in 1988, and the subsequent 100th anniversary of the Maybrick murder in 1889. It's possible the finished article was completed by January 1990, and Mike Barrett went ahead and bought the photo album/diary in an attempt to use it to perpetrate the hoax. I believe Barrett decided that the photo album/diary was not fit for purpose, and decided against using it. It's possible he abandoned the venture, but in March 1992 decided to give it another go, and so he bought the red leather Victorian diary. Finding that this diary was too small for purpose, he again turned to the original photo album/diary he had bought in 1990, and decide to use that. The rest is history.

                  Just to add, by the time he had paid for the second diary, he had forked out £75 for the two diaries. Not wanting to throw more money away by purchasing a third diary, and realising it could be quite some time before he could source a suitable diary, if it was at all possible, he decided to use the original photo album/diary.
                  That all makes a lot of sense.
                  But...

                  Then how did he get it into Battlecrease and under those floorboards without anyone noticing?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Hi Phil,

                    Just a quick observation. If, for the sake of argument, someone did find something in a biscuit tin, and confided to a workmate: "I found x, y or z in a biscuit tin", but never thought to describe the tin or show it to anyone, not imagining that someone on the internet would one day want to know the ins and outs of it, and now wished he hadn't said anything to anyone about any of it, I guess the biscuit tin would have to remain hearsay evidence, short of torturing an admission and a description out of the finder.

                    Your questions about the tin itself are therefore only slightly more difficult for anyone here to answer if it didn't exist outside an electrician's imagination.



                    Absolutely!

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Hello Caz,

                    Thanks for the post. Appreciated.
                    Sorry to say that those questions about the tin and wrapper are very relevant, when one well known pro-diarist was pushing the story pre-conference last year.

                    Now what any normal human being can conclude is that said person is declaring the story to be true.. by giving it his backing.

                    So there is no squirming out of this. Either it is true or it is a hoax story. And if( being a hoax story)..being perpetuated by a pro diarist is acceptable..then one could reasonably conclude it is done with intent.

                    Moving the goalposts back to this being a (false) story by an electrician does the bearer and promoter of said story no favours at all. It is deflection from the real problem. That being..
                    Promoting false truths in an effort to endorse the story of the diary as a whole.
                    Which all see as detrimental to this field..whomever said suspect is being written about.
                    I say it again..it is high time the nonsense stopped. Those responsible love to continue their idea of 'fun' and keep the story going.. and the further it gets taken..the further from the truth it becomes.

                    There are people in this field that claim to be serious about the subject. Sadly, some carry on perpetuating stories that are either false or straight hoaxes..and they know it. It is an insult to many others. So...I repeat...

                    Those questions about the tin are damned important. No deflection. No squirming. A Late Victorian biscuit tin would be worth money...so I want to know every detail about it and it's existence or not. And if it is just..as you say..'heresay' evidence..what the blazes is a pro-diarist doing pushing and promoting the story in the first place? Over egging the omlette is the polite term. Promoting a con trick is also something some would consider in their evaluation.

                    This isn't personal. It is a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff. .the truth from the b-sh*t. And all here are agreed that there has been and is. .way to much of the latter.
                    The sad thing is that people are selective when letting things get through the net.

                    So..all 11 questions await Keith's membership approval.
                    I suspect all the questions cannot be answered and these questions highlight promotion of a hoax. Sorry. That's my opinion..for what it's worth.

                    And the twelfth question. .why no mention of a lid in the story of this b..dy tin? Not even that the lid was missing! Nobody asked when investigating the story. .which tells me something very obvious. The details were ignored when this hoax was invented.

                    Perhaps I'm stating the bleedin' obvious?




                    Phil
                    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                    Justice for the 96 = achieved
                    Accountability? ....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                      That all makes a lot of sense.
                      But...

                      Then how did he get it into Battlecrease and under those floorboards without anyone noticing?
                      Hello Henry

                      Bang on correct.



                      Phil
                      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                      Justice for the 96 = achieved
                      Accountability? ....

                      Comment


                      • This thread has basically become a thread where a few crackpot posters come up with more and more outlandish statements as to how the diary came into Mike's possession and then sensible posters point out how ludicrous these scenarios are only for the crackpots to come up with more outlandish statements and the whole cycle continues. This leads me to two conclusions. 1. Mike isn't wasn't as stupid as some would have you believe and 2. you can't reason with crackpots.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                          didn't want to beclown himself
                          It's not often I've seen the splendid word "beclown" being used, but I'm glad you did
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            It's not often I've seen the splendid word "beclown" being used, but I'm glad you did
                            Thank you Gareth, perhaps the reason the word appears so rarely on the boards is that there is such little pretext here for its use, the contributors all being splendidly rational people making eminently reasonable points?

                            Comment


                            • Incidentally, Gareth, I recently stumbled at the other place across your marvellous Dylan Thomasesque 'Dear Boss' recitation.

                              'Now as I was young and easy under the Whitechapple boughs'?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                                I notice that Easter Sunday fell on the 19th April in 19992. The kids normally break up for a fortnight during Easter, a week before and a week after. So in effect the 10th April until the 27th April. Mike Barrett will have been relieved of his commitment of taking his daughter to and from school during this time, thus having more time on his hands than normal for that period.
                                Hi Observer,

                                Nicely observed.

                                Mike took the diary to London on Monday 13th April. So he'd have been on school run duties up to Friday 10th, if that is when the term ended. It's entirely possible he had asked Doreen if their meeting could be arranged for the Easter holidays, when Anne may have been off work anyway to be with Caroline.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X