One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Are you really saying that you believe the Diary is an old hoax but, despite stating this opinion on the forum, and despite saying "it has to be an old hoax", you've never claimed it's an old hoax?

I mean, surely everything that anyone states or claims on this forum about the origins of the diary is their belief, their view, their opinion, their take and nothing else. I was hardly saying that you claimed to have been around at the time of its creation and witnessed it being written with your own eyes!

Semantics and pedantry is one thing Caz but you seem to take it to an extreme level. In Caz Land perhaps you've never stated that the diary is an old hoax but here in Normal Land you've done it time and time again.

Blimey, David. If you think I take semantics and pedantry to an extreme level, I must have been taking notes from the master.

But seriously, you can have no idea how many posters have been hotly criticised over the years by their fellows for not making it clearer when they are stating something as a definitely ascertained fact and when they are merely offering their considered opinion. Try the Lechmere and Hutchinson threads for starters! That is why I try very hard not to 'state' what the diary 'is' or 'isn't', without making it clear it's my personal opinion. Others have not always been so strict with themselves, happily announcing that it 'is' the real thing, or 'is' a modern fake, and I don't care for being lumped in with them if it's all the same with you.

So in future perhaps you would do the decent thing and not quote me selectively as you chose to do above: "it has to be an old hoax", when you knew (because you managed on the previous occasion to quote me more fully) that what I actually wrote was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam
"My take is that it has to be an old hoax" (13 October 2016 #1995)

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Doreen vaguely wrote to 'Mr Williams' that she looked forward to meeting him 'in due course' and, at a subsequent point in time, possibly as late as 10 April (but we just don't know), Mike telephoned her again and they agreed to meet on 13 April, which meeting was confirmed by way of a second letter.

Checking my records, David, I see that Doreen's letter to Mr Barrett, confirming the date and time of their meeting on Monday 13th April, was dated the previous Wednesday, 8th April. At some point before the letter was written, Mike must have revealed his real name to Doreen, and the date and time of the meeting was presumably discussed and agreed between them.

If the 11-day creation is meant to have begun - at the earliest - on Tuesday, 31st March (the same day as the O&L auction you kindly pinpointed for us on your related thread), the diary would still have been in the production stage when Mike agreed to travel to London with it the following Monday, and would not be completed until the Friday beforehand, 10th April.

Are you still happy with the timing, according to Mike's affidavit?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I thought his story was that he was given £50 by Anne's father which means he certainly did splash out on the guard book.

I really don't understand the distinction you make between Anne's money and his money. It was the Barretts money wasn't it?

And there was no way he was going to know if Doreen's interest would survive UNLESS he caught the train to London. But I don't know Caz, perhaps he dodged his fare and sat in the toilet when the guard came round. Or perhaps he borrowed some money from his wife. Or his father-in-law. Or a friend. Or he sold some scrap metal. Or perhaps he had money from the social security. Or perhaps a friend drove him down. Or he took the coach.

Who cares about the bleedin' train fare?!

Nobody apparently.

But methinks you protest a little bit too much, considering your only explanation for Mike contacting a literary agent [and claiming to have the diary in his possession, ready for inspection] before he even knew if a suitable book could be obtained to house his forgery, was that he wanted to save any unnecessary expense until he knew if there would be any interest in the lengthy handwritten confession by Jack the Ripper he'd already researched and drafted!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Your whole point, that you keep repeating, about consecutive pages completely ignores the fact that the first words of the advert were for an "Unused or partly used…" diary. Now an unused diary must have consecutive pages all the way through. A "partly used" diary will almost certainly, up to a 99% level of confidence, have consecutive blank pages at the end because the partial usage will surely be at the beginning. In other words, a diary that someone started but did not complete. So the word "consecutive" in the advert would have been unnecessary (but might have increased the cost of the ad).

Except if I recall correctly when I was shown the offending object several years ago, it is akin to a little appointments diary for 1891, with entries scattered at random, leaving the unused pages neither consecutive nor all at the end. It certainly wasn't suitable for anyone to write at any length about their day or their feelings. [I'm sure I've said all this before.]

The kind of diary you are thinking of, and what presumably Mike was thinking of, that someone might start but not complete [with personal memoirs or recipes for example - or the mad ramblings of an arsenic eater] was a different beast, with entries dated or undated as the writer desired.

There was clearly a communication problem somewhere, if Mike was 99% confident that his request would be understood and would produce 20+ consecutive blank pages, in a late Victorian book that had been used as, or was suitable for, someone's personal journal. The enquiry was interpreted as a request for an actual diary as we would - up to a 99% level of confidence - understand it today, for recording the details of future events like - oh, a meeting on 13th April with one's agent about James Maybrick.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For the reason I've given above there was no need for the advert to say that the pages of an unused or partly used diary had to be consecutive.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so there was apparently every need.

And I've already said that the diary did not need to be "at least" 6x6 if there was sufficient blank pages in a smaller diary. This measurement is something that you have conjured up from your imagination and would have been impractical for an advert. Demand at least a 6x6 diary and you've ruled out a perfectly good unused or partly used 5x6 diary haven't you? So your idea is broken.

Mike's idea was broken, you mean. Forget the year - 1891. The thing that arrived in the post was far too small and entirely unsuitable for any purpose you could think of in relation to 'the' diary, so the advert proved utterly useless, didn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, if he knows that all Victorian diaries are different, what on earth was the point of ordering one for comparison purposes?

Can you only think in black and white, David? How many people do you know who would either think all Victorian diaries were identical, or think they were all different?

What don't you understand about the possibility that Mike had very little idea in 1992 what anyone's personal diary from Victorian times might look like and was curious to know how the guard book [which resembles a photo album or scrap book, and not what one would think of today as a diary] would compare with an authentic example?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He could not have been "curious to know how closely 'the' diary might compare with someone's actual personal diary from the 1880s" because, according to the advertisement, he would have been perfectly happy with an unused diary from the 1880s. Thus, whatever he was interested in, it certainly wasn't someone's actual personal diary.

Fair point, but Mike could have been curious to know how closely 'the' diary [which was meant to represent someone's actual personal diary from the 1880s] might compare physically with a genuine diary of the period. The one he had is physically like a photo album or scrap book, so that could have puzzled him and may explain why he asked for a diary, unused or partly used, and got what he got, rather than an example of someone's personal memoirs, which he never asked for.

In short, if it was the physical appearance of the guard book that concerned him, might that make more sense?

I wonder what anyone's idea, including Mike's, of an unused diary from the period would have been? It would presumably have had to have the word 'DIARY' printed on the front, or a year, or dates inside or something of the sort, to distinguish it from any other type of book, or it wouldn't have fit the definition, which might just be a clue to Mike's thinking here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz
Had that red diary been used for 'the' diary, and shown to Doreen on April 13th, would Mike still have been down as a 'late payer' and would Anne still have signed a cheque for it in the May? Is there any other way they could have dealt with the purchase to make sure nobody could ever trace it back and reveal that it was in fact sent to Mike - at the same home address he had given Doreen - on March 26th 1992, and certainly hadn't contained any sort of confession by Jack the Ripper?

Had Mike never said anything in his affidavit about it we would not know about the red diary (nor the advertisement) today.

Probably not, David, unless Anne had thought to mention it at some stage. But that's not really the point. Mike did mention the red diary in his affidavit as evidence that he had intended to use it for his little creation but it proved unsuitable. Are you saying he wouldn't have said a word about how he had obtained it if he had been able to use it, knowing there was a potential paper trail to follow? If so, why wouldn't he, if his confession was serious and he wasn't just playing games? A paper trail back to whatever he had used for the diary would surely have done the trick, wouldn't it?

But in this case the only paper trail was for the wrong bit of evidence - there's a surprise. A red herring of a diary that served no other purpose but to leave the affidavit with a fishy smell. As with everything else, it managed to fall short of proving a blessed thing. A pattern?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have finally found the time to address some of the posts made over the Christmas period, when I was having such trouble keeping up! Don't groan at the back there.

Here's an extract from Feldman's 'The Final Chapter' which proves what I have been saying (my bold):

'But what of the race, 'The fastest...'? The newspapers had certainly described the race as exciting and even surprising, but we could not find detail to confirm the diarist's use of those words. My Liverpool researcher, Carol Emmas, visited Aintree. They were not able to help. Carol, like all my team, was resolute. She scoured newspapers and magazines for days on end. Her efforts were not unrewarded.

In an obscure magazine called the Liverpolitan, in an issue dated March 1939, page 27 carried the headline A STATISTICAL GUIDE TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST STEEPLECHASE. Every result since 1837 was listed. So were the details of the owner, age and weight of the horse. The Grand National of 1889 was won by a horse called Frigate. It was the fastest Grand National run for 18 years!'

So it's exactly what I said. Not a single contemporary newspaper was found which mentioned that the 1889 Grand National was a fast one. Feldman's researcher basically had to dig up the statistics in a 1939 magazine. I feel sure that the claim that it was 'the fastest Grand National run for 18 years' is Feldman's own interpretation based purely on the winning times. But he hasn't taken into account the distances.

It must now be certain that we have found another error by our hapless forger who was just trying to be too clever.

Not so fast…

Find fault with Feldman by all means [most of us can and have], but there is a danger of using his overenthusiastic but faulty reasoning to try and score points against the diary, which may be unwarranted. Find another error of Feldman's and bingo, it somehow morphs into a related error made by our hapless forger. But if the diary is being interpreted in the same way as Feldy did, and too much is being read into the words, or not enough, or the words are being changed to read something else, it may not be our diarist who was trying to be too clever.

As many probably know by now, I don't believe our hoaxer had to try that hard. I think he knew plenty about the Maybricks that we have since learned [Michael wrote lyrics as well as music, for example]; I suspect he had some inside info on the ripper (but only as good as whoever supplied it); he didn't need to practise with pen and ink if that was all he'd ever known; and he wouldn't have had to sweat the small stuff – like the speed of a horse race - or even some of the bigger stuff, like it not resembling Maybrick's handwriting - if it was only ever meant as a literary prank, or burlesque, to have some fun at the Maybricks' expense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque

No-one at Aintree would have given consideration to which race was the fastest. They would talk of whether it was an exciting race or a dull one to be sure, but not a fast one or a slow one. It's just not how people think of them, either then or now.

Before Harry got there, I was thinking to myself, hold on, don't racing people talk about the 'going' being fast or slow, depending on the state of the ground? Here's the man:

What was the state of the track?Heavy,soft,firm ,hard.Had it rained?

Well The Times reported that 'The weather was all that could be desired' so I imagine that the going was good.

If the going was good, it could be said to have been 'fast'. But Harry went on to say:

The weather on the actual day of the race would matter little,if preceeding days had been wet,and according to one poster above,the weather had taken a dramatic change,from bad to good.So,on that assumption,a wet track and slower times.

So while the going could still have been slow due to the most recent spell of bad weather, despite a dramatic improvement on the day, that would not be comparing the going with the same race - the Grand National - in previous years. I wonder how many of them had been blessed with drier weather and firmer ground in the days leading up to the big event. This was after all early Spring in Liverpool, not July in the south of France.

It also wasn't the fastest race he had ever seen and, therefore, he could not possibly have thought it was, therefore, he could not possibly have written those words in his journal.

Hold your horses…

It doesn't matter whether Maybrick wrote the diary or not. According to Feldman, he and his wife attended every Grand National after marrying and settling in Liverpool. So when he attended the race in 1889, as we know he did, he would arguably only have been able to compare the going with other years he could remember well from earlier that decade. If the going in those years had looked relatively poor due to worse weather on the day, he might well have got an impression in the Spring sunshine of 1889 of a faster race, without caring or needing to know the actual comparative speed of the horses.

To describe an important race such as the Grand National as the fastest in history, or the fastest in living memory, the relevant statistic must have greatly impressed the author.

Maybrick supposedly attended the race, and may subsequently have read the press reports. However, neither experience would have entitled him to conclude that it was the fastest Grand National ever.

Except that the author only said it was the fastest Grand National "Sir Jim" had seen – not the fastest 'in history'; not the fastest 'in living memory'; not the fastest 'ever'. If he is meant to have had a reasonable view of the action each year, he would certainly have noticed when the horses were labouring through saturated grass and churned up mud, or thundering past him on turf that was springy and ground that was dry and firm. Isn't that much more likely to have been something the real James could have compared as a regular race goer, without having to know the ins and outs of a flea's bottom?

Ooh, that was rather timely, wasn't it? Grand National time is with us again - in more ways than one.

Have a great weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[johns]

Pardon me for butting in on this, but I don't think that the word "fastest" would mean that the race was actually "the fastest".

I walked down an alleyway and came across a big tough looking man. He was the biggest guy I'd ever seen. Was he? Have you measured and weighed every person you've ever met?

I went to see Iron Motorface and they were the loudest band I'd ever seen. Had you taken sound testing equipment to all your previous gigs?

The new sales manager at work is the slimiest git I've worked under. Actually that is true.

It's just a turn of phrase.

[GUT]

Pardon me for butting in on this, but I don't think that the word "fastest" would mean that the race was actually "the fastest".

I walked down an alleyway and came across a big tough looking man. He was the biggest guy I'd ever seen. Was he? Have you measured and weighed every person you've ever met?

I went to see Iron Motorface and they were the loudest band I'd ever seen. Had you taken sound testing equipment to all your previous gigs?

The new sales manager at work is the slimiest git I've worked under. Actually that is true.

It's just a turn of phrase.

Except the races were all measured, so it's not hard to say if it's fastest or not.

[Scott Nelson]

As many probably know by now, I don't believe our hoaxer had to try that hard. I think he knew plenty about the Maybricks that we have since learned [Michael wrote lyrics as well as music, for example]; I suspect he had some inside info on the ripper (but only as good as whoever supplied it); he didn't need to practise with pen and ink if that was all he'd ever known; and he wouldn't have had to sweat the small stuff – like the speed of a horse race -

Thank you Caroline. The hoaxer could be George Grossmith, possibly?

[caz]

Except the races were all measured, so it's not hard to say if it's fastest or not.

Except that "Sir Jim" over dramatises everything else in the wretched diary to the point of insanity, so why is he not allowed to do so when describing the race? The real James Maybrick was a drug addict in the last few weeks of his life when he attended the 1889 Grand National. If he kept a personal diary, I somehow doubt he'd have been anal enough to check if it was indeed the fastest he had personally seen, before committing himself to saying so.

I'm sure johns is right - just a turn of phrase.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thank you Caroline. The hoaxer could be George Grossmith, possibly?

I don't know, Scotty. I'm not sure the handwriting would be right for either of the Grossmith brothers, but it's the kind of mischievous literary prank that I could see the authors of Diary of a Nobody secretly relishing. They loved their f and g [fun and games].

Love,

Caz
X

[johns]

Except the races were all measured, so it's not hard to say if it's fastest or not.

Turn of phrase