One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

He didn’t need to write a text free of mistakes, anachronisms and direct quotes from secondary texts. If he managed, great. But the diary as is contains all those things, and still managed to fool some people.
Which shows the argument e.g. that he and his wife would have needed to be conscious of and careful to avoid lifting phrases from books is false.

Firstly, the 'mistakes' etc must all be open to interpretation, or presumably Orsam would not still have been looking, in 2020, for the one fatal error more fatal than all the rest. It's like he's saying he won't quit until he's 110% certain.

Secondly, the Barretts most certainly didn't lift the phrase '...very little the matter with...' from Bernard Ryan's paraphrased narrative. Those exact words came from Dr Fuller's own mouth, and the Barretts could only have known that from checking the primary source, which you imply they didn't do and had no need to do. [Christie also paraphrases, but writes: 'The doctor told him that nothing was seriously wrong with him...'.] And nobody, as far as I know, has yet demonstrated which source provided the Barretts with Florie's lie to Sir Jim, that the purpose of her visit to London was to attend to an aunt, and not to a lover.

It beats me why Orsam felt the need to demonstrate the bleedin' obvious: that nobody but Jim and Florie would have been privy to their private conversations, so once he had established in his own mind that the real JM was not trying to recall and record actual events and conversations in his own ledger, every such reference had to be the result of just three possibilities:

1) adapted/copied from a source that can be deemed reliable
2) adapted/copied from an apparently erroneous source, or at least one that cannot be deemed reliable at this remove
3) invented by the diary author

That's it.

So without the diary author to ask, Florie's 'aunt' could have been 1), 2) or 3), and all Orsam was really doing was to judge the quality of the hoax, by concluding that the hoaxer copied blindly from an erroneous source: Addison.

But because we can never know how a private conversation went between Jim and Flo - a pair of adulterous liars in real life - the diary author could have got it wrong, but equally could have got it right by accident. This is never going to be resolved because we don't have a reliable primary source.

I'm wondering if Orsam had to go looking for another error, more fatal even than 'one off instance' [??], because of something he once posted. I thought he must have been joking at the time, because the logic eluded me, but now I'm not so sure. He opined that the diary would have had to be genuine to come out of Battlecrease House, but 'one off instance' proved the real James Maybrick could not have written it, ergo it did not come out of James Maybrick's old home.

Anyone got any better ideas why Orsam went all out to bag himself an aunt, if she wasn't needed to be an understudy for his 'one off instance'?

Love,

Caz
X

[PaulB]

Well, I think a chronicle of events written daily or semi daily is a pretty good definition of a diary. And for what it’s worth various dictionaries back it up e.g.[/LIST]
So I cannot agree with the idea that the diary, which has for 25 years been known as a diary, is not actually a diary.

And the suggestion is not that MB only wanted paper of the right age - that was a minimum requirement- but that he would have liked a diary, not necessarily one with printed dates, like a calendar or day planner, but simply a book or volume which resembled a diary. Which is why he asked for a diary.

As for the daunting prospects in creating an hoax, well I’m sure you and I would look mainly at the risks, but other people in other situations do not. As it happens, the hoaxers did the best they could and it actually wasn’t very difficult to do, as evidenced by the state of the diary: not in Maybrick’s handwriting, in an improvised album with revealing pages cut out, ink not passing muster, text amateurish and modern, repeating mistakes from the few secondary texts consulted etc.

How does a book without pre-printed dates resemble a diary but differ from a notebook?

A diary certainly chronicles events, but it is generally and widely understood to be a record of the events of the day, or often just appointments, arranged in day-by-day order. A chronicle similarly records events as they happen, but over time (meaning the entries are not necessarily day-by-day), but I'm not going to get into an argument over definitions. The point is that the "diary" is a sort of confessional; something into which the author could express things he could not admit to anyone else. It should never have been called a "diary" and I did all I could to discourage that description, which I thought (and think) detracts from what I considered to be the book's purpose. However, "diary" stuck and eventually I succumbed to calling the book a "diary" too. The question remains fairly asked, the book isn't a diary as the word is conventionally understood, so why did Mike ask for a diary when a conventional diary is likely to have been what he'd be offered?

Of course some people won't appreciate the daunting difficulties of producing a successful fake, but what if you do appreciate them, even on the very basic level of not knowing what somone might look for that could catch you out? The fact that the book would be presented to a load of inept experts wasn't something the faker could have known, and any evidence that the faker tried to produce something that was passably Victorian suggests an awareness of the difficulties. If Mike was one of those who didn't appreciate the difficulties, and given that he hadn't written a day-by-day account, I wonder why he asvertised to buy a diary?

[caz]

...Also, MB clearly pursued other avenues: he claimed to receive money from his father-in-law, money which would cover at least "the appropriate paper should I find it" and he went to at least one auction. His remark about the paper shows that he was not sure about being succesful.

I'm sorry, Kattrup, but you are making this up. If Mike only 'claimed' these things, and was known to tell ten different lies in the course of a single conversation, how can you claim with a straight bat that he 'clearly' pursued any such avenues? Where is your evidence that he received any money from Billy Graham, or attended any auction, for the purpose of obtaining something to house the Maybrick diary?

Although MB had asked for a diary, if that didn't work he could possibly have placed requests for other types of materials, as you suggest. It seems he did not, because he managed to find the album at the auction and decided it was good enough. So the assumption that MB's diary request was his only hope - all or nothing, as you put it - is false.

But again, why did Mike need to blurt out anything to a literary agent about the diary, before he even knew if he'd be able to obtain anything suitable for it, or how long that might take? If his initial call to Doreen had been after 31st March 1992, when in theory he finally acquired what he needed and was thus able to describe the physical book, when the inevitable question was asked, you might have had some kind of argument, albeit still a tenuous and unsupported one. But the date of 9th March for that initial phone call reduces any such argument to rubble. You can offer no plausible reason for Mike to sound out Doreen on that day, of all days, when the floorboards were up in Maybrick's old bedroom.

So really, I don't think the argument "The diary is not really a diary and so MB would not need an actual diary and therefore it makes no sense for him to request one, he should have requested something else that would have been easier and had more chance of success" has any merit at all.

So you don't see why an actual 'diary' would have been just about the last thing Mike could have used for the text as we know it, never mind the tiny 1891 specimen he specifically asked Martin Earl to order and purchase on his behalf?

MB stated that his intention was to write the diary of Jack the Ripper. It's therefore perfectly straightforward that he went looking for a diary in which to write the diary.
The fact that he was unsuccesful in obtaining a suitable diary does not mean that it was not his intention.

But the mere fact that Mike 'stated' this was his intention, in no way entitles you to conclude that it was, and he was telling the truth for once in his life.

Do you not, as a historian, have any responsibility to seek out independent evidence for anything and everything a known liar once stated?

You have assumed this liar's motivation for the enquiry he made to Martin Earl, so how about explaining his motivation for volunteering a statement that he, his ex-wife, her deceased father and Mike's deceased pal had all conspired to commit fraud?

Love,

Caz
X

[PaulB]

Well, I was just replying to PaulB’s musings about the obstacles to overcome if creating a fake diary - my reply was that from the point of the view of the diary being a fake, the obstacles weren’t that great, because the diary as it is contains a lot of suspicious traits yet these were ignored or brushed aside and it got published anyway and made money.

Which was the other side of PaulB’s musings, namely that although it could seem difficult m, an hoaxer might do it anyway if tempted by the possibility of earning a few quid. (I think PaulB misses the point when musing about why the hoaxers did such a poor job; they likely did the best they could)

If I may, obviously the hoaxer did the best he could. That wasn't the point. Mike supposedly wrote on his word-processor something that wasn't a day-by-day account, yet he advertised for a Victorian diary, which was not suitable for what he had written. It's quite possible that he advertised fo a diary when what he really needed was a notebook, and it's quite possible that he bought a diary that was completely useless for any purpose connected with James Maybrick. I simply wonder if Mike's advertisement for a diary had anything to do with an intention of transcribing what he'd written into it. In fact, does advertising for and purchasing that diary, as grippingly suspicious at least one of those things might be, possibly suggest that Mike might not have been the faker?

[caz]

Iconoclast, I hate to break it to you, but you just described the diary as it is. So clearly: no, it did not matter.

As usual, Bongo's level of expertise can be scaled up or down as it suits you: in this case, you imagine he'd foresee all kinds of difficulties and since he did not correct for them, it follows he cannot be the hoaxer. I.e. because the hoaxer made mistakes, MB cannot have been the hoaxer.

In other cases, Bongo is an bungling fool who could not write a text to save his life or who'd never read a book in his possession.

Producing the diary was taking a chance - it could be succesful and bring reward but it could also be a risk. You're suggesting that since it was risky and could carry negative consequences, MB would not have done it.

Any criminal or quasi-criminal enterprise carries some risk and yet, there are some who try. Even married couples with kids. Usually, people focus more on the potential rewards than the inherent risk. As it happened, it was a pretty succesful gamble. No criminal charges (that I know of) and quite a lot of money.

Straight out of the gospel according to Lord Orsam. You've studied it well, Kattrup.

So why do you suppose he needed an aunt to add to his already succesful [sic] picture of a typical literary hoax, produced by Bongo Barretts all over the globe when they have a spare wet weekend with nothing better to do?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So - if Barrett could not 'simply assume ... or anticipate how easy or difficult it would be to find a suitable diary', why on eartyh would be so grossly restrict his options when he placed his advert?

It is the highly specific nature of his request which tells you that he is looking to see what a Victorian diary looks like. Granted, he wanted at least 20 blank pages - which this entire argument fundamentally hinges on - and that's not easy to explain if you're on my side of the fence; but if he was planning to use this diary to create a 63-page hoax in the next week or two, why did he specify a diary (thereby restricting his more than suitable alternative options - and why on earth did he still purchase the diary when it was self-evidently nothing like what your version of Barrett wanted?

Perhaps Barrett's version of Barrett had an ulterior motive?

Earl: "So what I've got here Mr Barrett is a trillion miles away from what you need so you don't need to buy it, I can stop the process right now.
Barrett: No, no. Send me it anyway.

But carry on.

Ike

Again, Ike, asking for 'at least 20 blank pages', in the context of wanting something to house the prepared text of the Maybrick diary, and then asking Martin Earl to purchase a tiny diary for him, with no serviceable pages at all, is akin to asking for 20 pieces of string - and then being satisfied with an offer of a bit of old rope.

"Do you have the 20 pieces of string I asked for?"

"Afraid not."

"I'll take it. A frayed knot is better than nothing."

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Again, Ike, asking for 'at least 20 blank pages', in the context of wanting something to house the prepared text of the Maybrick diary, and then asking Martin Earl to purchase a tiny diary for him, with no serviceable pages at all, is akin to asking for 20 pieces of string - and then being satisfied with an offer of a bit of old rope.

"Do you have the 20 pieces of string I asked for?"

"Afraid not."

"I'll take it. A frayed knot is better than nothing."

Love,

Caz
X

Reminded me of this...

[caz]

half the people are dead.

the other half are brain dead

Has Orsam shuffled off then - in more ways than just the one? Has RJ Palmer finally expired of boredom?

Or do you consider them both to be in your brain dead half, having spent years trying to spot even more signs of fakery than you were able to detect on day one?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

when is a diary not a diary or an aunt not an aunt? on a maybrick thread of course. bizarro world. : O

[Abby Normal]

Has Orsam shuffled off then - in more ways than just the one? Has RJ Palmer finally expired of boredom?

Or do you consider them both to be in your brain dead half, having spent years trying to spot even more signs of fakery than you were able to detect on day one?

Love,

Caz
X

see above. im just waiting for more hilarity about Ants and Dairies.

it is a fascinating and humorous read though to see how long this nonsense has been perpetuated. great fun!

[caz]

oh and to coin a popular phrase thats been bouncng around lately. ero and icon.... get a room!

caz will be peeping through the key hole.

How will I be able to do that, Abby, with your head in the way?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If I may, obviously the hoaxer did the best he could. That wasn't the point. Mike supposedly wrote on his word-processor something that wasn't a day-by-day account, yet he advertised for a Victorian diary, which was not suitable for what he had written. It's quite possible that he advertised fo a diary when what he really needed was a notebook, and it's quite possible that he bought a diary that was completely useless for any purpose connected with James Maybrick. I simply wonder if Mike's advertisement for a diary had anything to do with an intention of transcribing what he'd written into it. In fact, does advertising for and purchasing that diary, as grippingly suspicious at least one of those things might be, possibly suggest that Mike might not have been the faker?

Hi Paul

I had a muse about this myself several dozens of pages back. The way I see it, Mike contacted Doreen claiming ownership of Jack The Rippers "Diary". So, working from a Barrett hoax perspective, he hasn't created the document yet, but he's already mentally geared up to produce a "diary", in the sense of written by an individual privately. When Doreen takes the bait, he contacts Earl for a "diary", not accounting for the different interpretations of what a diary is, but focussing on what he perceives his diary to be. Upon recieving the red diary, he realises it's useless and looks for something else.

A diary, as a personal, private writing, can be written on anything right? It becomes a diary if that's what the author intends. But a physical, dated diary book isn't flexible, it serves a single purpose. So when looking at possibilities for Mike buying the red diary, I tend to fall on the side of him not really grasping that concept. He thought he was sourcing his interpretation of a diary.

(Now calm down you lot. I'm not saying this is what happened or that I believe it to be true. It's a musing, a scratched chin and a 'hmm?' A total speculation. We know Mike ordered a diary. We know he previously claimed to possess Jack's. "He advertised for a diary, when what he really needed was a notebook". He sure did. We can see that, could he though?)

[Abby Normal]

How will I be able to do that, Abby, with your head in the way?

haha good one caz.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Paul

I had a muse about this myself several dozens of pages back. The way I see it, Mike contacted Doreen claiming ownership of Jack The Rippers "Diary". So, working from a Barrett hoax perspective, he hasn't created the document yet, but he's already mentally geared up to produce a "diary", in the sense of written by an individual privately. When Doreen takes the bait, he contacts Earl for a "diary", not accounting for the different interpretations of what a diary is, but focussing on what he perceives his diary to be. Upon recieving the red diary, he realises it's useless and looks for something else.

A diary, as a personal, private writing, can be written on anything right? It becomes a diary if that's what the author intends. But a physical, dated diary book isn't flexible, it serves a single purpose. So when looking at possibilities for Mike buying the red diary, I tend to fall on the side of him not really grasping that concept. He thought he was sourcing his interpretation of a diary.

(Now calm down you lot. I'm not saying this is what happened or that I believe it to be true. It's a musing, a scratched chin and a 'hmm?' A total speculation. We know Mike ordered a diary. We know he previously claimed to possess Jack's. "He advertised for a diary, when what he really needed was a notebook". He sure did. We can see that, could he though?)

winner winner chicken dinner. amazing though you even have to spell it out though.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul

I had a muse about this myself several dozens of pages back. The way I see it, Mike contacted Doreen claiming ownership of Jack The Rippers "Diary". So, working from a Barrett hoax perspective, he hasn't created the document yet, but he's already mentally geared up to produce a "diary", in the sense of written by an individual privately. When Doreen takes the bait, he contacts Earl for a "diary", not accounting for the different interpretations of what a diary is, but focussing on what he perceives his diary to be. Upon recieving the red diary, he realises it's useless and looks for something else.

A diary, as a personal, private writing, can be written on anything right? It becomes a diary if that's what the author intends. But a physical, dated diary book isn't flexible, it serves a single purpose. So when looking at possibilities for Mike buying the red diary, I tend to fall on the side of him not really grasping that concept. He thought he was sourcing his interpretation of a diary.

(Now calm down you lot. I'm not saying this is what happened or that I believe it to be true. It's a musing, a scratched chin and a 'hmm?' A total speculation. We know Mike ordered a diary. We know he previously claimed to possess Jack's. "He advertised for a diary, when what he really needed was a notebook". He sure did. We can see that, could he though?)

Yes, I agree, Mike told Doreen he had Jack the Ripper's diary, and Mike advertised and bought a diary, and one can indeed write private things on anything (including a memento book containing mementos of happy days with Florrie), but does that necessarilly mean that Mike intended to write his narrative in the diary he bought? Especially when what he bought was completely useless for anything supposedly written by James Maybrick. I mean, Mike is a complete idiot, unless from time to time one wants him not to be, but was he really such as dunce that he never thought to make sure he bought a diary for a year when Maybrick would have been alive to write in it? I suppose he must have been. But what if he wasn't?