One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

In the round, the language of the diary strikes me as being that of a late 20th century Brit. I’d be very surprised if it isn’t. But so far no one has discovered a single phrase or combination of words that couldn’t reasonably have been coined in the 1880s.

Interesting that you say this MrB. How plausible do you find it that that late 20th-century Brit uncovered the term 'mole bonnet' and thought to slip it into their nascent hoax? Given that it took almost 30 years for someone to actually discover that the term 'mole bonnet' was indeed a term used around the time of the LVP (well done that man for finding it, by the way), how likely do you find it that he or she would ever have come across it never mind thought to use it?

MrI

[MrBarnett]

Interesting that you say this MrB. How plausible do you find it that that late 20th-century Brit uncovered the term 'mole bonnet' and thought to slip it into their nascent hoax? Given that it took almost 30 years for someone to actually discover that the term 'mole bonnet' was indeed a term used around the time of the LVP (well done that man for finding it, by the way), how likely do you find it that he or she would ever have come across it never mind thought to use it?

MrI

That is an excellent point, MrI.

I might add to that the ‘give her a call’ thing. A late 20th century Brit would have to have a real cloth ear not to have steered clear of that.

[caz]

This’ll be the man whose dignified description of a contrary opinion is to call it ‘word vomit’?

David went to a lot of trouble to produce a plausible theory of the development of the modern usage of ‘one-off’, but he did not and could not prove that the usage was not in existence orally in the 1880s. And neither, curiously, did he discover or choose to mention the equine usage of x-off. So, sadly, an element of doubt remains.

My ‘defence’ is sincere. I’m not really a diary nerd but discovering a 19th century usage of ‘topping’ was an eye opener and it triggered an interest in checking out the so-called linguistic anachronisms.

In the round, the language of the diary strikes me as being that of a late 20th century Brit. I’d be very surprised if it isn’t. But so far no one has discovered a single phrase or combination of words that couldn’t reasonably have been coined in the 1880s.

What makes me smile, Gary, is all that time and effort that has been going into trying to prove a negative: that this, that or the other phrase in the diary; or this or that two-word combination, could not possibly have come into being before such-and-such a date, as if they suddenly appeared on the surviving record, as if by magic, on the very day each one was first coined.

Anyone would think there was no simpler, quicker or more effective way of putting the diary to the sword, such as the handwriting not matching Maybrick's - or Mike Barrett giving a coherent - cough - comprehensive - cough - consistent - cough - account of who did what, when, why and how.

Okay, scrap the last one. That really was an impossibility.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Interesting that you say this MrB. How plausible do you find it that that late 20th-century Brit uncovered the term 'mole bonnet' and thought to slip it into their nascent hoax? Given that it took almost 30 years for someone to actually discover that the term 'mole bonnet' was indeed a term used around the time of the LVP (well done that man for finding it, by the way), how likely do you find it that he or she would ever have come across it never mind thought to use it?

MrI

Oh, I'm sure the suburbs of Liverpool circa 1990 were still buzzing with the sound of old dears chattering away on street corners: "Eh, Elsie, I seen me auntie's old Sunday best mole bonnet at the back of the cupboard the other day. She used to pawn it on a Monday and fetch it back on her Bert's payday. I'm thinking of wearing it to the British Legion Turkey and Tinsel on Saturday. What d'yer think?" "I didn't know you had an auntie, our Flo." "Well I say auntie, but I tell a lie. She were really me dear old granny's best friend like. But she were like an auntie to me."

Anne was bound to have heard such gossip as she popped in to see her elderly father with some shopping for him, on her way home from the day job.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Caz,

Are you sure that old Flo's dear old granny's best friend wasn't in fact her godmother who she called 'aunt' just to rile potential future posters to a future internet future chat site?

Ike

[caz]

Hi Caz.

If it makes you feel better, my reference to people knowing damn well that the diary is a modern fake was not a reference to you, though it is alarming how quickly you assumed that it was.

I must have missed the bit where I said anything about assuming who you had in mind. I only knew there must be more than one, but couldn't think of anyone specific who could be justly accused of what you alleged - and that included myself. I wouldn't have given a rat's arse if I thought you were aiming it my way, but I do care when I see others - plural - being targeted unfairly.

No; I have no difficulty believing that you have convinced yourself that the diary is a very old relic found under Jim Maybrick's floorboards.

Have I though? I have conceded on numerous occasions that it could have been written in recent times, by someone who never expected or intended it to end up with the likes of Mike Barrett. But you keep imagining what I haven't written and not bothering to read what I have. It affects your credibility more than it does mine.

I was actually referring to people who make arguments that can only be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that this bogus diary is consistent with it having been created by a Victorian cotton broker, while strangely avoiding any mention that it isn't even in Maybrick's handwriting, or that it alludes to a City Police inventory list not available for public inspection until the 1980s, or that it gives a 'modern' version of Abblerline as a One Man Band, or the inconvenient reality of Baxendale's solubility test, etc. etc. So yes, I have concluded that they are being deliberately myopic. They like to argue, even in defense of things they don't believe in.

Nice rewording and clarification. I'm sure the accused will feel all warm and cuddly to read that it's merely your conclusion/belief/opinion/point of view that they [still plural] are being 'deliberately' myopic, and defending 'things' they don't believe in - as opposed to seeing through bad arguments made by their fellow non-believers.

You should be damned well grateful that there are people like that who are looking out for the 'fraud' theorists and trying to save them from arguing themselves into tight corners and blind alleys.

As for my views of Anne Graham, you are clearly a master of projection. You are the one who has argued that she couldn't possibly have helped Barrett create this hoax.Despite the fact that, by your own admission, she hoodwinked Feldman and your co-author for years, signed along with Mike on the dotted line, created a new provenance when Feldman's film deal was floundering, made extraordinary statements that aren't the least bit credible, and used the hoax as a spring-board for her own biography of Florence Maybrick (despite earlier claiming that she had no interest in such matters!) Even if you think the woman is a saint--and obviously you don't--the courts are filled with women (and some men) who have been finagled into helping their spouses do all sorts of nefarious things.

None of that argues against the fact that you don't know Anne from a bar of soap, and yet you have given yourself the task of demonstrating that this woman would, and did, conspire with her husband in 1992 to take a fake of their own making to market.

So I don't need to know her personally to conclude that your beliefs about what she would and would not do are nothing short of incredible.

But this is not about me. If you seriously think you don't need to know someone, before you can judge them guilty of something like this, then that tells me more about you than I really cared to know.

I hope that clears the air. Feel free to leave me out of the Diary discussions in the future. If you want a 'safe space,' then have a 'safe space.'

I didn't say I wanted a 'safe space'; I said this ought to be one, where people can debate the arguments being made without being accused of knowingly defending what you call a 'fraud'.

It seems more like you're still itching for a fight, even though I said many times that I have no stomach for it. Is it possible that, without an enemy, the Diary really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on?

Didn't you claim its last leg was kicked away three decades ago?

If you have no stomach for the latest fight you caused with your unsavoury allegations, perhaps you will think of your poor tummy before you cause another one.

P.S. You keep referring to a crime. What crime was committed? Show me a statute that forbids the creation of a hoax under criminal penalty. Smith tried to sell the diary to the Sunday Times for a large sum of cash, so they had him investigated for fraud. By contrast, the Barretts did not seek to sell the diary--only to publish it. Are you similarly going to imprison Donald McCormick for inventing the Dutton Diaries? Yes, the Barretts eventually transferred the diary to Smith for an entirely technical one pound note. What crime was committed? Who would seek prosecution? Smith? Are you suggesting Smith was going to have them charged for petty larceny when he was the one that got all the proceeds from selling the film rights to Feldman, as well as a nice profit off the publication? If anyone played his cards correctly in this whole fiasco, it was Smith. He quite neatly avoided any possibility that the Barrett's would be rung-through-the-ringer by the police, and published the diary as a 'you decide' sort of event.

No, RJ, it's your repeated use of the 'f' word - fraud - that directly implies criminal behaviour on the part of whoever you believe knowingly tried to sell/publish/market [whichever term you prefer] a recent fake as the genuine article.

But you don't know that anyone did this, so 'fraud' is an inappropriate choice of word to describe what boils down to your personal opinion of the person or persons you seek to accuse.

[caz]

Caz,

Are you sure that old Flo's dear old granny's best friend wasn't in fact her godmother who she called 'aunt' just to rile potential future posters to a future internet future chat site?

Ike

As a primary school friend of mine once said, when my Mum asked her if she was sure she didn't want another custard cream with her orange squash:

"How can I be sure when I haven't got a sure to be sure with?"

At the time, Mum and I looked at each other and thought she was bonkers, but now I wonder if she had a wise head on very young shoulders.

Summed it up rather well, I thought.

Good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I am struck by a singular truth - that we know of only Anne Graham in the entire world who knows for certain whether the Victorian scrapbook existed in 1968 and that she, of course, denied lying about this. This does not mean that Anne Graham is the only person alive today who knows categorically whether the scrapbook is a hoax - as she herself points out, it could have been a contemporary hoax (although we know that this is a very problematic position to take due to the nature of its contents which were not in the public domain until around 1987).

Anne turned 71 yesterday. I would like to think that she would feel comfortable now in confessing to having lied about her knowledge of the scrapbook back in 1968, and her father's claims to have been in possession of it in 1950. I'm sure that at some point she will make that confession if it is there to make.

In the meantime, there will be no resolution to the puzzle for as long as we lack incontrovertible evidence of authenticity or hoax. The most 'incontrovertible' evidence for authenticity is the presence of Florence Maybrick's initials on Mary Kelly's wall, a situation which is predicted within the scrapbook (the initials bit, obviously, not the wall). The most 'incontrovertible' evidence for a hoax is probably the use of language which is claimed to be anachronistic for the time period of the scrapbook.

We will remain in this impasse forever unless something tips the balance. Anne Graham could tip that balance if she so chose to do. Who knows? Perhaps she feels the time is now right to confess to her role in a hoax? Certainly, if she continues to deny it (by proxy, in not confessing to it nor indeed speaking about it at all), then the puzzle will remain unanswered.

I am struck by by her final comment in her Radio Merseyside interview of October 4, 1995:

AG: Yes, well some people will say what they want. I mean, people will believe what they want to believe in the end. Some people, it’s not in their best interests to believe it because they have a lot tied up in the Ripper industry if you like. I don’t know because I don’t have that information to be able to say it is genuine. There’s a possibility James Maybrick wrote it but was James Maybrick the Ripper? I don’t know that.

If it transpires that Anne Graham was the driving force behind the creation (and possible author itself) of the Victorian scrapbook, she is one cool customer. The fact that her 'gravy train' appears to have left the station a long long time ago may mean that she is increasingly willing to resolve the mystery through a full and evidential confession of her hoax.

I would love it, love it, to be alive when that day comes as I for one am desperate to understand how for so long this (by her own admission) oh-so ordinary person fooled so many knowledgeable people who were so close to the artefacts of the case, until people only on the very edges of the debate solved it for us all remotely so many years later.

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Not 'some sort of genius'. Just not the Mike Barrett who was known to all those closest to him. Who says 'we' know enough about him to know he was both capable of writing the diary and likely to have done so? Those who have never met him or ever talked to him, presumably. Interesting that you lump the diary in with 'good' hoaxes. Was that a Freudian slip?

Tony was brown bread by the time the diary arrived in Goldie Street. That's the only reason he became part of the story to begin with.

The problem is that he was indeed a writer, whether you consider him to be of your preferred standard or not, Caz, is neither here nor there. For so long, everyone who was ever pro-Sir Jim, was of the opinion that Mike couldn't string a coherent sentence together, well Orsom showed that this was incorrect, he can indeed, and he did indeed.

I've mentioned a few times how this notion that simply talking to a person and considering them "soft" in the head is about as good a way of determining their ability to write a story as reading tea leaves is for determining one's future. It's daft. We know that many established writers are dyslexic, I've named many of the more famous ones on here.

Nobody knows how much Tony actually had to do with anything, his family don't feel he was involved, from what I recall.

Mike's the guy who keeps popping up all over the place, and he's the one with the book in hand. If it belonged to anyone else, they didn't bother mentioning it, unless you go for the "it was in Anne's family for years" story, which is as vague as it is hollow.

[Mike J. G.]

I am struck by a singular truth - that we know of only Anne Graham in the entire world who knows for certain whether the Victorian scrapbook existed in 1968 and that she, of course, denied lying about this. This does not mean that Anne Graham is the only person alive today who knows categorically whether the scrapbook is a hoax - as she herself points out, it could have been a contemporary hoax (although we know that this is a very problematic position to take due to the nature of its contents which were not in the public domain until around 1987).

Anne turned 71 yesterday. I would like to think that she would feel comfortable now in confessing to having lied about her knowledge of the scrapbook back in 1968, and her father's claims to have been in possession of it in 1950. I'm sure that at some point she will make that confession if it is there to make.

In the meantime, there will be no resolution to the puzzle for as long as we lack incontrovertible evidence of authenticity or hoax. The most 'incontrovertible' evidence for authenticity is the presence of Florence Maybrick's initials on Mary Kelly's wall, a situation which is predicted within the scrapbook (the initials bit, obviously, not the wall). The most 'incontrovertible' evidence for a hoax is probably the use of language which is claimed to be anachronistic for the time period of the scrapbook.

We will remain in this impasse forever unless something tips the balance. Anne Graham could tip that balance if she so chose to do. Who knows? Perhaps she feels the time is now right to confess to her role in a hoax? Certainly, if she continues to deny it (by proxy, in not confessing to it nor indeed speaking about it at all), then the puzzle will remain unanswered.

I am struck by by her final comment in her Radio Merseyside interview of October 4, 1995:

AG: Yes, well some people will say what they want. I mean, people will believe what they want to believe in the end. Some people, it’s not in their best interests to believe it because they have a lot tied up in the Ripper industry if you like. I don’t know because I don’t have that information to be able to say it is genuine. There’s a possibility James Maybrick wrote it but was James Maybrick the Ripper? I don’t know that.

If it transpires that Anne Graham was the driving force behind the creation (and possible author itself) of the Victorian scrapbook, she is one cool customer. The fact that her 'gravy train' appears to have left the station a long long time ago may mean that she is increasingly willing to resolve the mystery through a full and evidential confession of her hoax.

I would love it, love it, to be alive when that day comes as I for one am desperate to understand how for so long this (by her own admission) oh-so ordinary person fooled so many knowledgeable people who were so close to the artefacts of the case, until people only on the very edges of the debate solved it for us all remotely so many years later.

Ike

Why so many provenances?

This is the age-old question that y'all seem to have the most difficulty with, for some reason.

Why did a supposedly genuine artifact have not one, but several contradictory, origins?

If it came from the Graham's private library under the stairs next to the boiler, why bother saying anything different?

One thing's for sure, it certainly didn't come out of Jim's house and it definitely wasn't taken to a mysterious university department to be vetted by some secret professor who decided to vanish into thin air after the fact.

The diary tends to fall apart when you consider that there's no genuinely coherent provenance for it.

If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is.

[Mike J. G.]

Are we still blathering about initials on the Millers court wall?

Seriously, though?

They're only there if you need them to be there. It's absolutely laughable. Talk about clutching at straws.

You'll be seeing Jim's face forming in the bubbles in your cup of Bovril next, folks. Seek help.

[Mike J. G.]

What makes me smile, Gary, is all that time and effort that has been going into trying to prove a negative: that this, that or the other phrase in the diary; or this or that two-word combination, could not possibly have come into being before such-and-such a date, as if they suddenly appeared on the surviving record, as if by magic, on the very day each one was first coined.

Anyone would think there was no simpler, quicker or more effective way of putting the diary to the sword, such as the handwriting not matching Maybrick's - or Mike Barrett giving a coherent - cough - comprehensive - cough - consistent - cough - account of who did what, when, why and how.

Okay, scrap the last one. That really was an impossibility.

Love,

Caz
X

The day that Pro-Diarists realize that absolutely nobody needs to "bring the diary to the sword" will be the day that they can rest easily knowing that they legitimately grasp how the burden of proof works.

Ike's search for one glaring red flag is akin to Cheryl Cole's search for a stable relationship.

My search for one solid piece of evidence to suggest that the diary was:

a) written by Jim

b) evidence that Jim was Jack

c) produced before the 1980s

is going about as well as Cheryl's love life.

[Mike J. G.]

It ought to be, Ike, but a line gets crossed and it can get beyond ugly when some are accused of knowing the diary to be a modern fraud and paying lip service to that fraud.

You seem pretty fine with Ike's assertions that he knows it to be true, all the while maintaining that you're not a pro-diarist.

You've admitted there is no proof that JM was JtR, and may not have been. That's good enough for me. You express opinions, which few of us can agree with, while others express their opinions and we are free to agree or disagree. This is how it should be - a respect for the fact that opinions can be sincerely held, even if they seem incomprehensible to someone with a very different viewpoint.

Surely we're all aware that this entire saga is based only on opinion. What we actually know about "Jack" can be written on the small section of tile beneath the imaginary "FM" in poor Mary Jane's room at Millers Court. The point is, though, why are we continually asked by some here to provide some sort of nail in the coffin for a suspect that barely 7 people on planet earth feel was actually Jack when the vast majority of experts have binned him like the fantastical villain he's been forced into being?

There is equally no proof that the Barretts had anything to do with creating the diary. Nothing wrong with believing they did, or may well have done, and arguing from that point of view, without slagging off anyone who can't share it. But it's very far from being a proven fact, so it would be refreshing if more people could acknowledge this.

Ah, okay... Well, there's more circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Barretts were involved than there is to suggest that the diary is genuine. You cannot truthfully deny this.

They provided the book, Mike sought one out in an auction, they admitted to the hoax, they had ties to others who claimed they'd found it. All of that versus... what, exactly? Zilch.

Occam's Razor and all that.

I've got nothing against you, Caz, nor Ike, or anyone here, it's a bloody forum, ffs. But one thing I do find a bit odd is this willingness to bend logic and ignore common sense in favour of preferring a solution to a problem that isn't quite based in reality or backed up with evidence.

This willingness to pretend that Mike was some goober who had no chance of forging a diary isn't one based in logic or common sense.

The evidence for Mike and Anne having been involved is quite literally more pronounced than any evidence that it's a genuine diary written by James, or a hoax invented by someone else before the 80's. There's absolutely nothing to back up the idea that Jim wrote it. There's absolutely nothing to suggest anyone else wrote it.

Willfully ignoring reality because you don't like how it appears is up there with forcing yourself to see initials on bloody walls, Bigfoots behind trees in Google Earth photos and orbs in haunted houses.

[Iconoclast]

Are we still blathering about initials on the Millers court wall?

And there it is - the self-serving prejudices I mentioned on the other thread. I continue to 'blather' on about Florence's initials on Kelly's wall for a fairly obvious reason - they have been published consistently for at least half a century and they can be clearly seen. So, I wonder, should we just stop referring to them on the 100th occasion they have been dismissed as 'not there' by posters with an agenda to fulfil?

Detective: There's absolutely nothing here to point to Bob Smith being our man.
Trainee Constable: Erm, other than the gun which was licenced in his name, had his initials on the barrel, which fired the bullet which we know killed her, and which bore both his fingerprints and DNA, and of course was still smoking when we found him standing over her holding the gun in this room not two minutes ago before you let him go.
Detective: What would you know about detective work, constable?
Trainee Constable: That's very true, Detective Smith.

They're only there if you need them to be there. It's absolutely laughable. Talk about clutching at straws.

Which, funnily enough, is the exact same argument as 'They're only not there if you need them to not be there. It's absolutely laughable. Talk about clutching at straws.'

[Iconoclast]

The day that Pro-Diarists realize that absolutely nobody needs to "bring the diary to the sword" will be the day that they can rest easily knowing that they legitimately grasp how the burden of proof works.

Ike's search for one glaring red flag is akin to Cheryl Cole's search for a stable relationship.

My search for one solid piece of evidence to suggest that the diary was:

a) written by Jim

b) evidence that Jim was Jack

c) produced before the 1980s

is going about as well as Cheryl's love life.

And here's you lecturing others on 'science' on that other thread!

As the rest of us all know, the burden of proof sits fair and square with whoever is making any claim which has not yet been proven.

If you say that the scrapbook is a hoax, the fact that you are pronouncing what sounds like a 'negative' does not absolve you of the intellectual need to back up your claim.

If, on the other hand, you say, "I'm not convinced by your argument" then the burden of proof very much remains with me.

But that's science for you, Mike. I really hope this has helped you to understand it a little bit better than you evidently did.