One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

well there's the answer to the thread title, the "Duary" is refuted.

Good point!

[David Orsam]

Barrett advertised for a diary. You and I know perfectly well that a diary is a diary and a notebook is a notebook.

But this goes back to the question I asked you a few minutes ago which you refused to answer.

Do you think Barrett should have advertised for "a notebook" from the period 1880-1890 then?

Well he's not going to find a completely blank one is he?

So it would have to have writing in it?

And what sort of notebook with writing in it (and blank pages) from the LVP - which can be accurately dated - is the only sort of notebook that is likely to exist for sale in 1992?

I can't think of one can you?

Oh hold on, aren't they called "diaries"?

[David Orsam]

And for the record, the journal of James Maybrick is NOT a diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you find it strange then that Mike Barrett is quoted on the first page of Inside Story as stating to Doreen Montgomery's assistant over the telephone in March 1992:

"I've got Jack the Ripper's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?"

????

Was he talking about a different book to the one we all refer to as "the Maybrick Diary"?

[Iconoclast]

But obviously he's not going to write his Maybrick Diary in a diary bearing the year of 1890.

So I just can't see what you think the problem is. The paper will be from the right period which is the important thing.

Oh - so he's just after the paper???? He's going to staple it all together and say this was Jack's journal? I see now!

So why did he stop at 1891 in his advert?

[Iconoclast]

But this goes back to the question I asked you a few minutes ago which you refused to answer.

You're seeing conspiracies where there aren't any David. I just didn't catch this question in amongst the 20 or so exchanges we've just enjoyed.

Do you think Barrett should have advertised for "a notebook" from the period 1880-1890 then?

If I hadn't been fretting about the imminent relegation of the mighty barcodes to the 3rd division of English football for the first time in their history - and in their centenary season too! - I would have been happy to have advised Mike Barrett to advertise for a late Victorian period notebook with blank pges in or a diary from the period 18XX to 1889. I would have strongly advised him to avoid seeking any document which might have a year on it which came after 1889. I would further have suggested that if it was just the LVP blank paper he required that he simply advertise for some LVP blank paper.

Of course, I was fretting about the barcodes and missed my chance to clarify this unfortunate incident before it ever happened.

Well he's not going to find a completely blank one is he?

So it would have to have writing in it?

And what sort of notebook with writing in it (and blank pages) from the LVP - which can be accurately dated - is the only sort of notebook that is likely to exist for sale in 1992?

I can't think of one can you?

Oh hold on, aren't they called "diaries"?

I can't hold that people in the LVP only made notes when they were writing their - what are they called again? - Oh yes, "diaries". I think some of them (possibly many of them) just had ... what are they called again? Oh Yes, "jotters", "notebooks", "goodness only knows what".

[David Orsam]

Oh - so he's just after the paper???? He's going to staple it all together and say this was Jack's journal? I see now!

So why did he stop at 1891 in his advert?

The short answer is that he didn't.

In the advert he requested a diary from 1880-1890. So he's basically just chosen the correct decade.

As I understand it, the advert was unsuccessful so he ended up instructing a bookfinding company to locate one for him (showing how determined he was to get one).

But 1891 appears to have been the closest one he could find to 1888.

[David Orsam]

You're seeing conspiracies where there aren't any David. I just didn't catch this question in amongst the 20 or so exchanges we've just enjoyed.

First of all, nothing I have said suggests a conspiracy.

Secondly, you did see the question because you replied to it.

Here is our exchange:

Me: "What type of book, then, are you suggesting that Barrett should have tried to acquire in 1992 in order to forge a Victorian Diary?"

You: "It doesn't matter. I am not Mike Barrett and never have been. Therefore I am unable to explain why he did what he did or thought what he thought."

[Iconoclast]

Do you find it strange then that Mike Barrett is quoted on the first page of Inside Story as stating to Doreen Montgomery's assistant over the telephone in March 1992:

"I've got Jack the Ripper's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?"

????

Was he talking about a different book to the one we all refer to as "the Maybrick Diary"?

What, because he didn't say "I've got James Maybrick's diary"? Let's play this one out:

Assistant: How can I help you?
Williams: I've got James Maybrick's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?
Assistant: Er ... not really. Thanks for your call. [Hangs up]

I'm sure I've missed your point, but it was good fun, and I'm off to watch the rest of 'Ghost Protocol' with the very long-suffering love of my life ...

PS I meant it when I said I'd enjoyed the exchanges, though, David! :-)

[David Orsam]

If I hadn't been fretting about the imminent relegation of the mighty barcodes to the 3rd division of English football for the first time in their history - and in their centenary season too! - I would have been happy to have advised Mike Barrett to advertise for a late Victorian period notebook with blank pges in or a diary from the period 18XX to 1889. I would have strongly advised him to avoid seeking any document which might have a year on it which came after 1889. I would further have suggested that if it was just the LVP blank paper he required that he simply advertise for some LVP blank paper.

Your advice to advertise for blank paper doesn't strike me as very good advice because he will need it to be bound in a book from the period too.

Your advice for "a late Victorian period notebook with blank pges" is problematic for three reasons. Firstly, how can Barrett accurately establish the date of such an item if he gets it? Secondly, a "notebook" is surely quite the wrong word for what he needs. Thirdly, in realistic terms, you are, I think, really only using another description for a diary.

[David Orsam]

I think some of them (possibly many of them) just had ... what are they called again? Oh Yes, "jotters", "notebooks", "goodness only knows what".

What, you mean like diaries?

[David Orsam]

What, because he didn't say "I've got James Maybrick's diary"? Let's play this one out:

Assistant: How can I help you?
Williams: I've got James Maybrick's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?
Assistant: Er ... not really. Thanks for your call. [Hangs up]

I'm sure I've missed your point, but it was good fun, and I'm off to watch the rest of 'Ghost Protocol' with the very long-suffering love of my life ...

PS I meant it when I said I'd enjoyed the exchanges, though, David! :-)

Yes, you have "missed" my point, as you well know. I'm glad you have enjoyed the exchanges.

[caz]

I'm pretty sure I had a Kindle copy...

As you were! My mistake; what I meant to say was that I used my copy for kindling.

Ouch, Gareth! Double ouch! What was so dire about Ripper Diary - The Inside Story then? You are the first person I think I have ever seen dissing all our hard work to this degree. And I didn't have you down as a book burner. You could have given it to a charity shop, no?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...(by the way, I agree with Caz that the journal is either authentic or a hoax - it cannot be a forgery as it makes no attempt to mirror Maybrick's known formal handwriting)...

Just to be clear on this, Ike, I don't agree it's 'either authentic or a hoax'. I firmly believe it to be a hoax - a spoof if you will - that was very likely never expected, nor intended, to be taken as the genuine article by whoever came across it first. If it had been found a few decades earlier, in different circumstances and with none of the Barrett 'baggage' attached, I doubt anyone would have seen it as other than a prank, created by someone with an abiding interest in the infamous 1888 ripper murders and the infamous 1889 Maybrick trial. No money motive, more like playful mischief making.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

am not up to clambering around to lay hands on my Ripper books at the moment, but wasn't someone doing the rounds, shortly after her trial, with a diary (or diaries), purported to have been written by Florence Maybrick? Why does the name Stewart Cumberland come to my mind?

Cheers,

Graham

[caz]

So (as I also asked you) none of the "shortcomings" have anything to do with the ink solubility test? Doesn’t that make them of no relevance to the issue of ink solubility - unless you are saying that Baxendale was incompetent to carry out an ink solubility test. Is that what you are saying?

No - read what I actually wrote, David, rather than what you imagine I may have meant. I went into some detail to explain, using plain English in common usage, the potential problem with Baxendale's apparently one-off personal interpretation of his ink solubility test result. Dr. Nick Eastaugh reported that it was 'clear' to him, when conducting his own tests just a short while after Baxendale, that the ink's solubility was similar to his Victorian reference material. So there's a 'clear' unresolved discrepancy here, and I don't know if Baxendale reached his conclusion that 'an exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945' (which sounds to me quite unlike 'recently' penned, as in barely dry when he did the test in 1992) from comparing the solubility with a range of documents of known ages, or was merely expecting a Victorian ink to be far less soluble.

So no, I was saying nothing about the competency of Baxendale, Eastaugh or my cat to 'carry out an ink solubility test'.

Love,

Caz
X