One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Sam Flynn]

If a government can spread murder across the globe metaphorically in 1885, so can a serial killer spread his mayhem, metaphorically throughout England, or actually across Whitechapel.

Just on that specific point, the spreading of murder/rapine was directed at a group - i.e. the Government - not an individual. Nobody would speak of a rapist "spreading rape", any more than a purported Ripper would have spoken about "spreading bodily harm". The sense in which "mayhem" is used in the diary is readily apparent from the context of that verse (Punch cartoon etc), where the diarist rejoices in the confusion spreading through the ranks of the clueless police.

[caz]

I don't see that any of that should preclude the Barretts from being the writers, Caz. Who knows how long the idea of hoaxing a diary had been stewing?

But that's not quite the point, is it?

While it might not make it physically impossible, in theory, for anyone who hasn't the faintest clue what made the Barretts tick, or what they may or may not have been doing in that tiny period between 1st and 12th April, 1992, it doesn't even begin to amount to evidence that they were behind the diary, let alone wrote it between them.

And after 26 years of trying and failing to pin something - anything - on one of the Barretts, even with Mike's 'help', all we ever seem to get from the modern hoax theorists is the lame argument that it really doesn't matter who did it.

Well actually, yes it jolly well should matter, if they'd sooner not still be debating the pros and cons over the next 26 years. If we had the author's identity, none of us would still be arguing the toss over their choice of words or when they were using them.

David's 'one off instance' is clearly not doing the trick on its own, judging by all the other issues that are being brought up and debated yet again, by people other than diary defenders, including David himself.

The handwriting, the ink [is it Diamine or not?], the red diary, Mike's affidavit, other words and phrases that are not even a problem any more, you name it. Poor David must be more than a wee bit frustrated by now, to be spending his time repeating his 'one off instance' mantra, when he's not busy recycling, transcribing and posting old letters related to other matters entirely.

One day he might actually come across something in that old documentation that proves he was right about 'one off instance' indicating a modern hoax. So there's always hope.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I'd certainly like to know precisely who wrote the diary, Caz, but whether it was the Barnetts or not is secondary to the question of its being a modern fake. The fact that I believe it is derives from the text itself, not from any presupposition of authorship.

[caz]

Really? Everywhere? Amongst all social classes?

What don't you understand about the term 'street slang', Gareth?

"Sir Jim" is meant to have been getting down and dirty with the dregs of society, not 'everywhere', but where those dregs can be found. He has to fit in with the crowd so he can pick up street women and slaughter them like horses, without appearing out of place and risking an appointment with the hangman.

And that's not an excuse, it's what our diarist is very clearly portraying. The use of street slang: 'to top myself' could hardly be more apt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

What don't you understand about the term 'street slang', Gareth?

What I do understand about "top myself", specifically, is that I was completely unaware of this particular bit of street-slang until it started turning up in the Porridge, Minder or Sweeney shows I watched in my youth. As to how familiar or well-used that phrase would have been amongst most Victorians is another matter. Perhaps Druitt used it in a long-lost suicide note?

"Sir Jim" is meant to have been getting down and dirty with the dregs of society, fitting in with the crowd so he can pick up street women and slaughter them like horses, without appearing out of place and risking an appointment with the hangman.

I see no evidence to suggest that the authors of the diary were particularly thorough in their research into Victorian-speak (quite the contrary), nor that they were such accomplished writers that they'd imbue their fictional creation with such a backstory.

[caz]

Just on that specific point, the spreading of murder/rapine was directed at a group - i.e. the Government - not an individual. Nobody would speak of a rapist "spreading rape", any more than a purported Ripper would have spoken about "spreading bodily harm". The sense in which "mayhem" is used in the diary is readily apparent from the context of that verse (Punch cartoon etc), where the diarist rejoices in the confusion spreading through the ranks of the clueless police.

Nope.

The diarist is laughing to see the first three letters of his surname in the cartoon caption, and the police being too blind to see.

May is causing the 'Mayhem' [capital M] with his knife, spreading the mutilated bodies across Whitechapel, and the news of his fiendish crimes to all parts of England, just as the government was said to have spread murder to all parts of the globe.

There is nothing to see here. The diarist did not need to know the modern sense of chaos or disorder, nor to be thinking of it in that way, to write any of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'd certainly like to know precisely who wrote the diary, Caz, but whether it was the Barnetts or not is secondary to the question of its being a modern fake. The fact that I believe it is derives from the text itself, not from any presupposition of authorship.

Again, it's just opinion without the author's identity. That was my point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Nope.

The diarist is laughing to see the first three letters of his surname in the cartoon caption, and the police being too blind to see.

May is causing the 'Mayhem' [capital M] with his knife, spreading the mutilated bodies across Whitechapel, and the news of his fiendish crimes to all parts of England, just as the government was said to have spread murder to all parts of the globe.

There is nothing to see here. The diarist did not need to know the modern sense of chaos or disorder, nor to be thinking of it in that way, to write any of it.

Sorry, Caz, but the diarist is quite clearly enjoying the chaos and confusion he's caused to spread among the ranks of the police and in the country at large.

The idea that an individual would "spread mutilated bodies" doesn't work, neither does the notion that committing mutilations in Whitechapel (and once in Manchester) can be read as spreading mutilation all over the country.

It is entirely obvious to me that the diarist is using the phrase to mean chaos and confusion - it makes perfect sense in the context. The alternatives make little or no sense in any context I can think of.

[Sam Flynn]

Again, it's just opinion without the author's identity.

The Hitler Diaries would have been shown to be modern fakes, irrespective of whether they'd been forged by Konrad Kujau or Joe Schmoe.

[David Orsam]

David,

I don't think I asked you if you had 'evidence', I didn't need to ask if you'd posted a million words in support of your opinion, I believe I asked if you had proof.

A simple yes or no is all that is required.

Gary, how do you think anything can be proved without evidence? Asking me if I have proof by definition requires me to tell that you I have evidence.

This is what you said to me:

"Do you have proof that the phrase is an anachronism (no need to gild the lily with 'and doesn't belong to the period)?

I'm guessing not."

My response was

"But you are guessing wrong…"

I think you will find, therefore, that I answered the question.

The proof of the pudding, as they say Gary, is in the eating, which may be why you have indigestion. I dread to think how many hours you have spent searching to locate the phrase in a 19th century document – you must have been absolutely determined to find it – yet so hopeless a task you've found it to be that you say "it may never be [cracked]" . Of course it won't be cracked - one off instance" is an anachronism, which doesn't belong to the period, meaning that the Diary wasn't written at the time it was supposed to be and is, therefore, a fake.

If, as I suspect, the answer is no, then it's not 'impossible' that the diary is contemporary with the Whitechapel murders, is it? Unless you have other 'proof'

As you suspect wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

Have you read the title of this thread?

Not only have I read the title of this thread Gary but, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I have posted a one-off incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Diary. I did it in 2016 and here we are in 2018 and nothing I have said on the subject has been controverted. The OP of this thread, who created that title, has so thoroughly given up hope that he now clings to the sad and deluded belief that the Diary author was writing about a single "off instance"!!! In 25 years, with all the digital searches which can be performed, not a single nineteenth century example has been found. There can be no doubt that "one off instance" is a twentieth century expression, ergo the Diary is a fake.

[David Orsam]

We are privileged to have an expert in the forging of historical documents in our midst! Next she will be telling us how insane it would be for someone to produce sixty forged Hitler diaries at a rate of three diaries a month, some being written in a single day, and expect anyone to believe they are genuine. And she will surely tell us how insane it would be that a respected historian could authenticate those diaries and that a magazine could pay in excess of £2m for them.

No doubt she will tell us exactly how long a forger needs to wait to present a forged document as genuine. I'm sure they are all happy to forgo any immediate profit and lock them away for a number of years to allow the ink "to dry" even though when most people write a document in ink on paper the ink seems to dry very quickly, certainly on the same day!

In this case, it's reassuring that a person at the British Museum whose job did not involve authenticating documents, and who had no expertise in such a business, was asked to take a quick look at the Diary and suggested that it be looked at by an expert document examiner which tells us….er….

And it's just a shame that our expert in the forgery of historical documents can't provide any sensible explanation as to why Mike Barrett searched for, and purchased, a Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages at a time when he had supposedly already "found" a genuine Victorian diary containing plenty of blank pages.

[David Orsam]

On a point of order, I understand that the correct job title of Robert Anthony Hilton Smith, described by Shirley Harrison as "a curator of 19th century manuscripts" was Assistant Keeper, Department of Manuscripts, British Library. I have seen no independent evidence that he had any special responsibility for 19th century manuscripts and I don't know where she got that idea from.

In any event, it strikes me that the most basic requirement of any forger of a 19th century document is to make it appear to be an authentic 19th century document!!! So for Smith to say that it looked authentic means only that it was authentic or the forger had done a competent job in making it look authentic. How does one tell which? Well by taking it to a document examiner, as Smith advised. This was, of course done. It was taken to Dr Baxendale, an experienced document examiner, who concluded that the Diary was a fake.

[David Orsam]

You know, I wasn't around back in the days of Melvin Harris and John Omlor but am I not correct in thinking that their arguments were rejected by certain Diary Defender as "risible, far-fetched nonsense"? If only they had twigged that the evidence shows the Diary was acquired and written AFTER Mike attempted to purchase the red diary, Harris and Omlor might have seriously rattled those Diary Defenders, just like they are clearly rattled today.

[David Orsam]

It's extraordinary how the world's leading expert on pedantry, who is so normally insistent on the reproduction of the exact words used by other writers, can write (bold in original):

"On page 6 of Robert Smith's 2017 book, after quoting Voller's words to Warren: "Nigrosine, although a black dyestuff, does have bluish undertones", he goes on to write that in 1995, Warren had sent him a sample of his own writing using Diamine ink supplied by Voller, who had also supplied Shirley Harrison with two bottles.

Robert says he spotted the unmistakable "bluish undertones" of the Diamine ink used by Warren.""

But what Smith actually says in his book is that he received an anonymous letter in 1995 which he assumed to have come from Warren: "I assume it was him, as he was the only person to receive the ink from Dr Voller apart from Harrison." Not sure why that wasn't mentioned.

But what's even more extraordinary is that this same pedant, who normally insists on seeing things with her own eyes, is happy to accept Smith's word for it that he spotted the "bluish undertones" of the Diamine ink.

So why has he not reproduced a copy of what he was supposedly sent by Warren in 1995? For it certainly is not the same letter that I have reproduced in this forum. And, as Smith says that, "I wrote some rather more sober words using the Diamine ink and a Victorian dipping pen on Warren's missive" - something he could only have done no earlier than 2011 when he first received what was purported to be Harrison's missing bottle of Diamine ink - adding "the two samples are identical", it would appear that there was no change in the ink in the 1995 letter over a 16 year period.

But we need to be sure that the letter received by Smith in 1995 really was from Warren and really did exhibit bluish undertones. So why is a copy not available?

What I see in the Warren sample from 1995 that I have reproduced is the same greyish undertones as we see in the Diary. Voller also seemed to be troubled by the comparison so it's really got nothing to do with viewing an "old photo" on a message board – a photograph which, incidentally, was taken last month, so is not old.

There is no evidence from anyone that Diamine ink starts off as astonishingly watery, and grey, and then becomes opaque and black or blue as time goes on. Voller has never said any such thing so let's not start trying to guess at what Diamine does.

It may well be that further tests can be done but that only demonstrates that there is uncertainty as to what ink the Diary was written with and the issue is by no means resolved.

It may be recalled that back on 6 December 2017 I wrote in #181 of the Acquiring A Victorian Diary thread: "if Barrett did purchase ink to forge the diary from the Bluecoat Chambers art shop, it might not have been Diamine ink." In response, in #214, my words "might not", were, as usual, tiresomely highlighted in bold (as if I wasn't aware I had written them!) with the comment "Might not? Nobody has ever produced any good evidence that it could be, and all the evidence that has been produced indicates that it isn't."

Well it seems that "all the evidence that has been produced" doesn't quite indicate that it isn't Diamine and my wording was quite correct. It might not be Diamine ink, but it still might be. If someone wants to make a positive assertion one way or another, the onus is on them to establish it.

[caz]

This is the explanation we were given by the world's leading expert for how Mike got his hands on the Diary (Acquiring a Victorian Diary thread, #49, 30 Oct 2017):

"Here's one explanation I prepared earlier:

Sometime in March 1992, a Battlecrease electrician approaches Mike in The Saddle: "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?"

For Mike to do anything with it, he has to come up with some other story. He thinks – and hits on the idea quite quickly, remembering another pal, who used to drink in The Saddle and even lived on the same road as the electrician, who has been dead for around six months. Perfect. He simply backdates his acquisition of the diary to before August 1991, so he can have a housebound Tony thrust it upon him in gratitude - a funny little reward - for the errands he could feasibly have been running for him. "Do something with it, Bongo, but I'll say no more so it's no use asking." Death comes not long afterwards, relieving Tony from Mike's persistent questions, which naturally he refused to answer to the end. If Tony's daughters are highly sceptical [and they were], at least they can't prove it didn't happen."

Now, there were no known witnesses to any transfer of a Diary from Eddie to Mike and Eddie has always denied transferring it. So where do the words "Do something with it" come from? The answer is that they come directly from Mike Barrett's mouth! So there he was supposedly telling us the truth about what he was told when he received the Diary. And we are supposed to believe it is true!

In the same post, we were also told this:

"So the live wire electrician becomes a real but deceased invalid; 1992 becomes 1991; the Anfield pub becomes a real house on Fountains Road; the stolen diary becomes a gift for services rendered; and Mike's persistent questions to the electrician become persistent questions to Tony instead, but the bottom line is the same. He has acquired this diary and is determined to do something with it. He can hardly deny any links with The Saddle, can he? And he has to base his story on real people and places featuring in his life at the right time. But at least he has the sense to move the centre of operations from a public house to a private one."

See that? Mike's "persistent questions to the electrician". What persistent questions to the electrician? Sure, Mike said he asked persistent questions about the Diary of the person (a drinking pal from the Saddle) who he said gave it to him. But are we now supposed to believe that this was true????

I wonder what the Great Electrician Defender thinks has changed since I wrote the above?

I'm flattered to see it being spread to another thread, as I think it reads rather well, and offers possibly the only viable explanation for how Mike really got the diary, given that neither of us believes he got it from Tony, and given my view that his 11 day creation claim was beyond insane.

Mike was lying whenever his stories involved poor old Tony Devereux, but liars find it easier to convince people when they can nick bits and pieces from real events, such as the purchase of the red diary to convince people like the Great Electrician Defender that this was meant to be used to forge 'the' diary, or the pestering of a drinking pal who lived on Fountains Road, to convince others that this was Tony in 1991, shortly before he conveniently pegged it, and not - oh no no - most definitely NOT a poor maligned live sparky in 1992.

Love,

Caz
X