The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[jason_c]

There is a YouTube video out there with a document examiner whose job it is to look for fakes. The video isn't specifically about the diary but the examiner touches upon it. He says one immediately tell for a likely hoax is that Victorian era blank diaries/writing paper is very hard to come by. Whilst not categorical proof the diary is a fake the fact it's not actually written in a diary(or even writing paper as I understand it) should at least ring alarm bells.

[erobitha]

There is a YouTube video out there with a document examiner whose job it is to look for fakes. The video isn't specifically about the diary but the examiner touches upon it. He says one immediately tell for a likely hoax is that Victorian era blank diaries/writing paper is very hard to come by. Whilst not categorical proof the diary is a fake the fact it's not actually written in a diary(or even writing paper as I understand it) should at least ring alarm bells.

The document was not a diary or intended to be one.

A notebook of random musings if you will. I use a notebook everyday at work. No dates. Just notes to remind me of things I want to be reminded of. It’s for my own use.

I prefer to look at such things through the eyes of human behaviour. Not what a document examiner thinks or doesn’t think on a whim. Scientific evidence I’m all for.

Opinions not so much.

[rjpalmer]

I use a notebook everyday at work. No dates. Just notes to remind me of things I want to be reminded of. It’s for my own use.

I prefer to look at such things through the eyes of human behaviour.

And is this 'notebook' you keep at work a used photo album with the initial pages cut out and discarded?

You seem to be suggesting it is normal 'human behaviour' to do such a thing, so I was just wondering...

[jason_c]

The document was not a diary or intended to be one.

A notebook of random musings if you will. I use a notebook everyday at work. No dates. Just notes to remind me of things I want to be reminded of. It’s for my own use.

I prefer to look at such things through the eyes of human behaviour. Not what a document examiner thinks or doesn’t think on a whim. Scientific evidence I’m all for.

Opinions not so much.

Nah, it really doesn't pass the smell test. Written in a book/album that a historical document examiner immediately tells us should raise suspicions. The diaries provinance is also very sketchy. An extremely controversial item that comes from a recently deceased family member or friend is probably fake. The most famous serial killer in history just happens to leave behind a full confession and an account of his innermost demons. I have a Hitler diary available to anyone who wants to buy it and a Lee Harvey Oswald notebook in which he details his plan to assassinate the President.

I too try to look at these sort of things through human behaviour. The case is ground zero for charlatans and hucksters. Too much money to be made from a gullible press and public.

[Scott Nelson]

I'd say rewritten by the "Devereux Committee" from the original, which was then discarded.

[erobitha]

Nah, it really doesn't pass the smell test. Written in a book/album that a historical document examiner immediately tells us should raise suspicions. The diaries provinance is also very sketchy. An extremely controversial item that comes from a recently deceased family member or friend is probably fake. The most famous serial killer in history just happens to leave behind a full confession and an account of his innermost demons. I have a Hitler diary available to anyone who wants to buy it and a Lee Harvey Oswald notebook in which he details his plan to assassinate the President.

I too try to look at these sort of things through human behaviour. The case is ground zero for charlatans and hucksters. Too much money to be made from a gullible press and public.

So much money was made you’re right. What an absolute golden goose the diary itself was for Mike Barrett who earned himself a whopping pound for his hard work hoaxing.

Yes he received royalties from Harrison’s book so it would be disingenuous to claim he did not benefit on some level. But the smell test to me of Barrett writing the journal has a very different whiff to the scent you are sniffing.

[erobitha]

I'd say rewritten by the "Devereux Committee" from the original, which was then discarded.

I will say Scott, it is not a theory I can rule out.

[erobitha]

And is this 'notebook' you keep at work a used photo album with the initial pages cut out and discarded?

You seem to be suggesting it is normal 'human behaviour' to do such a thing, so I was just wondering...

Well I don’t commit murder so my notebook is quite innocuous. If I did commit murders I’d probably want something that would not look out of place on my bookshelf or found in a drawer.

I do keep my PIN number as a phone number in my phone book of my phone. Why would I do that?

[Iconoclast]

Nah, it really doesn't pass the smell test.

A document of this potential importance rather self-evidently requires a bit more than some ****** smelling it, for ****'s sake (whether metaphorically or literally).

Written in a book/album that a historical document examiner immediately tells us should raise suspicions.

And - of course - we know with unwavering certainty (you even mention the obvious example below) that historical document examiners cannot be wrong.

The diaries provinance is also very sketchy.

The diary's provenance - if categorically on the record from 1889 to April 13, 1992 - would self-evidently help the case but a lack of provenance is not evidence that an item is fraudulent. It is not even evidence that its provenance is weak. It is simply evidence that its provenance back to 1889 is not on the record therefore it cannot be assessed in terms of informing us whether or not the artefact is genuine or not.

An extremely controversial item that comes from a recently deceased family member or friend is probably fake.

Let me correct you on that, an extremely controversial item that comes from a recently deceased family member or friend and which has no established provenance can probably be more safely assumed to be a fake though our assumptions mean nothing to the ultimate truth of the matter.

The most famous serial killer in history just happens to leave behind a full confession and an account of his innermost demons.

If you were the most famous serial killer in history is it literally beyond the realms of all possibility that you may have kept a record of your infamous crimes? Are records more likely kept by the innocent than the guilty? By the ordinary life than the out-of-the-ordinary life? And can you prove this to us, if this is the position you wish to take? Have psychologists studied this in oft-repeated social experiments and established an enduring trait in serial killers that they lack all interest in recording their crimes? And peer-reviewed journals have reinforced this principle as an unyielding psychological truth about that particular type of human evil?

I have a Hitler diary available to anyone who wants to buy it and a Lee Harvey Oswald notebook in which he details his plan to assassinate the President.

But here's the rub on this tediously oft-repeated trope (I think it is so tedious, I may myself have occasionally been gripped by its frightening undertow), you don't have a Hitler diary and you don't have an Oswald diary. If you did, and we know you don't because these things are obviously extremely rare in the record, and they were fake (don't buy the Porsche just yet), do you imagine that it would be possible that 30 years later their authenticity or inauthenticity would remain the stuff of considerable and rather heated debate?

I too try to look at these sort of things through human behaviour. The case is ground zero for charlatans and hucksters. Too much money to be made from a gullible press and public.

Can you think of a known hoax (not an imagined hoax, or an I-wish-it-were-an-established-hoax) where the hoaxer had bought that Porsche you had your eye on with your hastily-concocted Hitler and Oswald diaries?

Mike Barrett had a share of the copyright on the Victorian scrapbook so he made about £40,000 out of the book sales. Shirley Harrison and publisher Robert Smith presumably made similar amounts. But - if none of those created the fake - then they are not the example you are craving, are they? So when has a hoaxer actually made the fortune you so confidently tell us has been made from a gullible press and public?

Your casual analysis is a common danger on this site. In my brilliant Society's Pillar, I even dedicate a chapter to this ('An Arsenal for the Indolent'). In my even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025, there will be a chapter which will pretty much demolish any wishful-thinking you've ever done regarding Mike Barrett's authorship of the scrapbook - and all pretty much from his own words, painfully transcribed by me (and others) over many long days and weeks. You can order your copy now simply by being nice to me.

Ike

[jason_c]

A document of this potential importance rather self-evidently requires a bit more than some ****** smelling it, for ****'s sake (whether metaphorically or literally).



And - of course - we know with unwavering certainty (you even mention the obvious example below) that historical document examiners cannot be wrong.



The diary's provenance - if categorically on the record from 1889 to April 13, 1992 - would self-evidently help the case but a lack of provenance is not evidence that an item is fraudulent. It is not even evidence that its provenance is weak. It is simply evidence that its provenance back to 1889 is not on the record therefore it cannot be assessed in terms of informing us whether or not the artefact is genuine or not.



Let me correct you on that, an extremely controversial item that comes from a recently deceased family member or friend and which has no established provenance can probably be more safely assumed to be a fake though our assumptions mean nothing to the ultimate truth of the matter.



If you were the most famous serial killer in history is it literally beyond the realms of all possibility that you may have kept a record of your infamous crimes? Are records more likely kept by the innocent than the guilty? By the ordinary life than the out-of-the-ordinary life? And can you prove this to us, if this is the position you wish to take? Have psychologists studied this in oft-repeated social experiments and established an enduring trait in serial killers that they lack all interest in recording their crimes? And peer-reviewed journals have reinforced this principle as an unyielding psychological truth about that particular type of human evil?



But here's the rub on this tediously oft-repeated trope (I think it is so tedious, I may myself have occasionally been gripped by its frightening undertow), you don't have a Hitler diary and you don't have an Oswald diary. If you did, and we know you don't because these things are obviously extremely rare in the record, and they were fake (don't buy the Porsche just yet), do you imagine that it would be possible that 30 years later their authenticity or inauthenticity would remain the stuff of considerable and rather heated debate?



Can you think of a known hoax (not an imagined hoax, or an I-wish-it-were-an-established-hoax) where the hoaxer had bought that Porsche you had your eye on with your hastily-concocted Hitler and Oswald diaries?

Mike Barrett had a share of the copyright on the Victorian scrapbook so he made about £40,000 out of the book sales. Shirley Harrison and publisher Robert Smith presumably made similar amounts. But - if none of those created the fake - then they are not the example you are craving, are they? So when has a hoaxer actually made the fortune you so confidently tell us has been made from a gullible press and public?

Your casual analysis is a common danger on this site. In my brilliant Society's Pillar, I even dedicate a chapter to this ('An Arsenal for the Indolent'). In my even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025, there will be a chapter which will pretty much demolish any wishful-thinking you've ever done regarding Mike Barrett's authorship of the scrapbook - and all pretty much from his own words, painfully transcribed by me (and others) over many long days and weeks. You can order your copy now simply by being nice to me.

Ike

If it looks like a duck etc it's probably a duck. We have a document examiner saying the paper the diary is written on should immediately raise suspicions. We have dubious provenance. We have folk making money from the diary All this surrounding the most famous criminal in modern times. Also, I do have doubts about the way you interpret my post(s). At no point did I suggest document examiners cannot be wrong. I said their opinion should immediately 'raise suspicions' about the diary's legitimacy. This, I think, blatantly shows I do not view document examiners as infallible.
I look on the diary much as I look on the Shroud of Turin. No matter what any expert or theologian tells me about the Shroud it will never pass the smell test for me. This goes for the diary too. It's very, very unlikely the most famous criminal in true crime history just happens to leave a diary behind, a diary that just happens to surface a couple of years after a highly publicised centenary of the crimes.

[rjpalmer]

a lack of provenance is not evidence that an item is fraudulent. It is not even evidence that its provenance is weak.

This is one of the most remarkable arguments I've seen from the author of Society's Pillar, and I look forward to 2025 for more of the same.

"The lack of a provenance... is not evidence that its provenance is weak."

Let that one roll around your head.

For if the diary lacks a provenance, how can the provenance it lacks be weak?

The provenance it lacks could just as easily be extremely strong!

Similarly, I lack a Rolls Royce, but if I did own a Rolls Royce, it would be a top-notch model.

And no one can provide a single shred of evidence that the Rolls Royce I lack isn't a top-notch model.

Q.E.D.

[Iconoclast]

This is one of the most remarkable arguments I've seen from the author of Society's Pillar, and I look forward to 2025 for more of the same.

"The lack of a provenance... is not evidence that its provenance is weak."

Let that one roll around your head.

For if the diary lacks a provenance, how can the provenance it lacks be weak?

The provenance it lacks could just as easily be extremely strong!

Similarly, I lack a Rolls Royce, but if I did own a Rolls Royce, it would be a top-notch model.

And no one can provide a single shred of evidence that the Rolls Royce I lack isn't a top-notch model.

Q.E.D.

Q.E.D., my arse, Mr. Palmer, ex-critic of James Maybrick or some such mince.

I'll say it again, and then it will be three times we have said it between us today. The lack of a provenance is self-evidently not evidence that its provenance is weak. It is evidence that its provenance is missing. Therefore, we can have no idea whether its provenance was in reality strong or weak. But you knew that, in truth, didn't you? Of course you did, you bloody well said so! I think you were just missing the cut and thrust of going head-to-head with Ripperonomy's finest proponent - the man who will one day put it all to bed. You just want to dice with him, knowing that this you will tell your grandchildren in your dotage: "I clashed swords with The Great Iconoclast, back in the day, before the '25".

Look, it's okay, wave your sword. There are battles a-plenty before you all concede and scuttle away with your tales [sic] between your lugs [sic]. In the meantime, let those tales "roll around your head" - there's room enough to spare, I suspect ...

Ike

[rjpalmer]

The lack of a provenance is self-evidently not evidence that its provenance is weak. It is evidence that its provenance is missing. Therefore, we can have no idea whether its provenance was in reality strong or weak.

Dang, Ike. You're actually willing to double-down on this gobbledygook?

Have you looked up the definition of provenance in a dictionary?

"provenance: a record of ownership of a work of art or an antique, used as a guide to authenticity or quality."

Another way to describe it would be a record of the object's history or its chain of custody, with the obvious implication that it needs to have one!

If there is no record of where a questioned document came from, then there is no provenance and by definition the provenance is weak; indeed, it is so weak as to be non-existent.

Being non-existent is not a good thing, Ike. Not in the world of questioned documents, and no word salad will change this.

You're also glossing over the obviously embarrassing fact that the diary does have a provenance: both Mike Barrett and Anne Graham stated that the diary was given to Mike by Tony Devereux, a retired printer from down the boozer.

That--such as it is--was the diary's 'record of ownership.'

Unfortunately, Mr. Devereux was inconveniently dead and couldn't back up the story, and Devereux's children denied he had ever mentioned owning such a relic and his son-in-law characterized Devereux as so stingy that he never gave anything to anybody.

Thus, the provenance was weak. I remember one well-known Ripperologist, Paul Begg, once characterizing it as "appalling."

And thirty years on, things haven't changed much. Mike and Anne both changed their stories, of course, creating other provenances that also lacked confirmation. And currently we are back to being told that Mike got the diary down the boozer--from a man who denies having known Barrett and denies having given him the diary.

Thus, the provenance is still weak.

Anyway, I must be having some effect on Society's Pillar, Ike. I notice that you changed the line about the diary having "two excellent provenances" to "two potential provenances."

It is a small revision, but I feel my time here has not been wasted.

[Iconoclast]

Dang, Ike. You're actually willing to double-down on this gobbledygook?

This is almost uniquely galling - last week, I definitely triple-downed on this one and posted it. I'm sure I did (I can visualise it). Worryingly, I'm now wondering if I previewed it but forgot to post it. Dingblast it if I did.

Anyway, it was another brilliant post from your favourite poster in which I triple-evented on the provenance chat, but I'm buggered if I can remember what I wrote so I'm going to have to leave it there and you are all going to have to just accept and deal with the disappointment of having missed out on some of my best genius yet.

Ike

[Mike J. G.]

Can you think of a known hoax (not an imagined hoax, or an I-wish-it-were-an-established-hoax) where the hoaxer had bought that Porsche you had your eye on with your hastily-concocted Hitler and Oswald diaries?

Mike Barrett had a share of the copyright on the Victorian scrapbook so he made about £40,000 out of the book sales. Shirley Harrison and publisher Robert Smith presumably made similar amounts. But - if none of those created the fake - then they are not the example you are craving, are they? So when has a hoaxer actually made the fortune you so confidently tell us has been made from a gullible press and public?

Your casual analysis is a common danger on this site. In my brilliant Society's Pillar, I even dedicate a chapter to this ('An Arsenal for the Indolent'). In my even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025, there will be a chapter which will pretty much demolish any wishful-thinking you've ever done regarding Mike Barrett's authorship of the scrapbook - and all pretty much from his own words, painfully transcribed by me (and others) over many long days and weeks. You can order your copy now simply by being nice to me.

Ike

Roger Patterson, 1967.



He was in the middle of making a movie based on the book he'd published a year earlier: Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?




He'd also set up a research project around this time from which he received funding for his endeavours, namely, 'Squatchin!




While making this movie loosely based on his book, he ran out of funding, which he'd gathered from various friends and associates, namely a husband and wife couple called Radford, from whom he borrowed a substantial amount and never paid back, according to the available evidence.




Having bugger-all in the way of moolah, he decided that he'd be better off scrapping the movie idea and just shooting the"money shot," and offering it up as a real-life encounter with an ape (wo)man.




Many of the scenes intended for the movie are still available to watch on the first reel of film, various scens involving Patterson and Bob Gimlin in a wig pretending to be a native American guide. The second reel of footage is the well-known segment that is now embedded in pop culture and legend, the Bigfoot striding along the Californian sandbar.




Patterson made a good wedge of cash selling this footage many times over to many various people and companies who screened it, often alongside genuine nature and wildlife documentaries. Not only that, but Patterson took the footage on a tour of North America with Bob Gimlin, complete with wig, until he had a dispute with Gimlin over his lack of ability to get his story straight after seeming to contradict Roger's version of events in interviews, not that that bothers the believers.




Roger Patterson went to his grave swearing that he'd genuinely filmed a real live Sasquatch, and he went owing a lot of money to a lot of people, but having been diagnosed with terminal cancer some time before, he didn't much care, in fact , he'd even been wanted for having pinched the very camera he shot the footage on, which he'd failed to return!




So he left his wife a nice little nest egg, and to this day, nobody has conclusively proven a hoax .. Which is why such things as "smoking guns" in hoaxes, aren't really necessary, IMO.




What came up a lot from people who interviewed R&B, was that both men lacked, primarily, the intellectual capacity essential to the production of a hoax ... termed a masterpiece. Similarly, one researcher noted that "Most acquaintances of Patterson volunteered that neither he nor Gimlin were clever enough to put something that detailed together."




So, did Roger Patterson genuinely film a real-life Sasquatch in the Californian wilderness? Or was he just a bit more clever than most people gave him credit for?


Something to chew on for a while...