The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[c.d.]

Hey! I got mentioned by name in David's article. Well I'll be damned. Number 3 on the list I might add and in front of Caz. Take that Caz! I didn't think I was that important but the buttons are now flying off my inflated chest. My immediate response is to devote my life to reading countless obscure plumbing journals to prove David wrong. On second thought I'll just politely ask David to research the first usage of the expression "go pound sand up your ass."

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

I've had a quick looksie and it's looking very bad for some us out there! I have not yet had the opportunity to read it all (we were all watching 'Temptation Island' in the Iconoclast household) but I'm sure I'll get the Kevlar on tomorrow and give it a full read.

As I haven't read it, I don't know if he's responded to the most important issue of all yet - why his website uses about 23.65% of the visible screen?

Cheers,

Ike

PS I preferred him when he told a few jokes ...

too spare you 100% agony! ; )

[Iconoclast]

Just in case anyone hadn’t seen it David has posted this article on his website.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/sendintheclowns.htm

And no, I’m not David’s publicity agent

Hi Herlock,

I've had a quick looksie and it's looking very bad for some us out there! I have not yet had the opportunity to read it all (we were all watching 'Temptation Island' in the Iconoclast household) but I'm sure I'll get the Kevlar on tomorrow and give it a full read.

As I haven't read it, I don't know if he's responded to the most important issue of all yet - why his website uses about 23.65% of the visible screen?

Cheers,

Ike

PS I preferred him when he told a few jokes ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just in case anyone hadn’t seen it David has posted this article on his website.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/sendintheclowns.htm

And no, I’m not David’s publicity agent

[Sam Flynn]

also David pointed out the odd use of the word "within" both by barrett and the diary writer.

There's the use of "I seen" as well, although that's rather more common.

[Iconoclast]

but im sure someone will tell us its because barrett picked it up after becoming obsessed with reading the diary (that he didn't hoax).

Abby,

Just an idea here. Rather than attempt to ridicule the possibility of it, how about you demonstrate how it could not be so?

Cheers,

Ike

[Abby Normal]

I’m rapidly approaching 54 and I’ve never once in my entire life heard anyone else use regards in this way Ike.

hi HS
also David pointed out the odd use of the word "within" both by barrett and the diary writer.

but im sure someone will tell us its because barrett picked it up after becoming obsessed with reading the diary (that he didn't hoax).

[Iconoclast]

I am not so much interested ,Ike,in what Barrett's statement proves, as I am in the supposed confession of Maybrick.You show categorically that Maybrick was the ripper,and I'll accept you are the clever person you say you are,and that arguments in favour of a hoax,are redundant.Till then I'll hold that my navel gazing remarks lead to a belief,that Barrett was a more clever person than you,and that he did,with others,fool a number of people

There's no doubt at all - Mike Barrett was unequivocally The Cleverest Person Ever (if defined by how far from one's true baseline one's projected skills are cast).

[harry]

I am not so much interested ,Ike,in what Barrett's statement proves, as I am in the supposed confession of Maybrick.You show categorically that Maybrick was the ripper,and I'll accept you are the clever person you say you are,and that arguments in favour of a hoax,are redundant.Till then I'll hold that my navel gazing remarks lead to a belief,that Barrett was a more clever person than you,and that he did,with others,fool a number of people

[Iconoclast]

Ike,
The question was put because I do not know the answer as to when it was created,or why.Did the creation begin with the first entry into the book,or was it created in someone's mind beforehand. ... Or,was it a case of considering a diary as the means of incriminating a likely suspect,and then finding that suspect, and landing on Maybrick.
What do you think Ike?What section do you class the above as belonging to,navel-gazing,or specifics.

I didn't answer your last question, harry. I put this in the category of navel-gazing because debating whether the scrapbook was purchased before Maybrick was identified as a potential foil argues for a hoax but does not in any way advance the hoax argument. Like arguing whether Liz Stride's grapes were red before we establish categorically that she was actually a victim of Jack.

I could expand upon this but it requires that I assume (possibly incorrectly) that you believe Mike's dramatic 1995 confession to provide the generalities (if not the specifics) of the truth. If this were the case, then we would be in a world where Mike had already written the contents of what became the scrapbook on his Amstrad word processor and obviously before his wife Anne did the transcribing into the newly-sourced scrapbook. This would all have been around two years before they did anything with it. This aligns with your namesake HarryD who - as a hardened acolyte and follower of Lord Orsam - has to believe that the transcribing of the 63 pages all occurred in eleven magical days in March and April 1992 (because he believes that Barrett 'phoned London with his masterplan before he had actually purchased the physical vehicle for it).

All of these things are possible, but they are nevertheless also aspects of navel-gazing because they are focused on arguing for how the hoax could have been concocted without establishing in any way that it is actually a hoax. Personally, I will worry about whether Mike and Anne and Mr. Big could have done the deed after it is categorically shown that a hoax was perpetrated; though - in all honesty - if it's a hoax, I probably won't care so much whether it was created by Harry Dam in the late Victorian period, or HarryD's dad in the early 1990s.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike - I wasn't aware that news of the Diary had gone public before the watch first came to light. What sort of time frame are we looking at? Is there anything known about Robbie that would back up the suggestion that he forged the watch? And wasn't Albert offered a pretty decent sum for the watch? Surely Robbie would have made sure he took that money if he knew it was a hoax? And presumably Robbie somehow set-up the scenario at Albert's workplace where the scratches were first discovered - is it actually possible that he could have done that? Sorry, I don't expect you to answer all of those questions, I'm just thinking out loud. God, the Diary and watch really does my head in!

Hi Steven,

Sadly, it is a hall mark of this case that the watch came to light just weeks after the Liverpool Post ran the first headline revealing that a Maybrick-Ripper link was about to be published (actually, Harrison's opening salvo came out about six months later).

There is probably everything about the apparently lovable scally Robbie to suggest that he could have had a hand in the watch. Where Albert was as solid, working bloke, Robbie was apparently less dedicated to work and had a more entrepreneurial spirit than Albert, so much so that he apparently sold a per centage of his share of the watch (which Albert had generously-foolishly given him) to an anonymous party and that it was partly because of this mystery party's reluctance to sell that the mooted deal with the American ultimately failed to transpire.

You should take a look at your well-thumbed copy of Ripper Diary: The Inside Story by Seth Linder, Caroline Morris, and Keith Skinner (starting around page 40, but the Johnsons get about quite a bit in the book) if you want to know more. Actually, as it's one of my seminal Maybrick texts, I strongly recommend that everyone reads it at least a couple of times. I think I've probably read it about ten times. It is the Maybrick story from the inside and the out but without the unnecessary passion and personal investment of Harrison and Feldman so you may feel it is the most unbiased book on the scrapbook you'll find. Even more so than Society's Pillar possibly!

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Ike,
The question was put because I do not know the answer as to when it was created,or why.Did the creation begin with the first entry into the book,or was it created in someone's mind beforehand.No w clever persons like yourself might know that it could have been created a hundred or so years ago during the lifetime of Maybrick,and probably was,others ,of a very limited intelligence like myself are of opinion it w as a hundred or so years afterwards.So if the latter, why a hundred or so years hence,and what might have been the sequence of events.Barrat gives one version,and if it is true,it began with an idea of one person and shared with two others,,but does not clearly explain whether Maybrick was a known likely suspect around whom a story could be constructed,and a diary the means of how it could be told,Or,was it a case of considering a diary as the means of incriminating a likely suspect,and then finding that suspect, and landing on Maybrick.
What do you think Ike?What section do you class the above as belonging to,navel-gazing,or specifics.

Hi harry,

Yes, you are quite right, I am indeed A Very Clever Person, and I can confidently tell you that the highest probability scenarios are as follows:

• The scrapbook is a hoax from 1987 onwards, very cleverly starting in the middle of a sentence rather than started then butchered; or
• The scrapbook is the genuine article from 1888 and 1889, written by James Maybrick, and probably (given the internal content) butchered in order to return certain artefacts it held back to the Maybrick company, thereby assuaging young clerk Lowry's concerns regards certain missing items.

No other scenario is realistic, although some do exist (mainly around the old hoax theory).

I don't think you will benefit yourself or this forum by speculating outside of these parameters. Was it purchased without a character in mind? Well, the obvious answer to that is we won't know until the mystery is solved so - if that is the case - there's no great fruit to be found in seeking answers to such questions. Just my view (though I am A Very Clever Person, you'll recall, so my advice may prove useful).

Cheers,

Ike

[StevenOwl]

All really good questions, Steven. I agree with you that the thought of Bongo producing this level of craft is a real stretch. If he did, he was also a truly brilliant actor, and if this is the case then he was a one-hit wonder master-forger and truly brilliant actor. Why did he save all of this skill and expertise to just this one venture? Why leave his acting prowess to a relatively late stage of his life?

The watch is a compelling piece of evidence but it doesn’t have to be a Bongo knock-off. In principle, and I think this may be an Orsam argument, Albert could have bought the watch as he described and someone such as that lovable rogue of a younger brother Robbie could have done a little creative work on the innards when Albert’s back was turned (after having read of the Maybrick ‘diary’ in the Liverpool Echo).

I certainly wouldn’t discard the watch, but equally I wouldn’t worry about having to link it to Bongo Barrett and his band of brigands.

PS I tried valiantly to get an apostrophe in my use of ‘wouldn’t’ but the editor wouldnt apparently let me do it. I did intend one and if one is there, great. Questionable editor, though!

Cheers,

Ike

Hi Ike - I wasn't aware that news of the Diary had gone public before the watch first came to light. What sort of time frame are we looking at? Is there anything known about Robbie that would back up the suggestion that he forged the watch? And wasn't Albert offered a pretty decent sum for the watch? Surely Robbie would have made sure he took that money if he knew it was a hoax? And presumably Robbie somehow set-up the scenario at Albert's workplace where the scratches were first discovered - is it actually possible that he could have done that? Sorry, I don't expect you to answer all of those questions, I'm just thinking out loud. God, the Diary and watch really does my head in!

[harry]

Ike,
The question was put because I do not know the answer as to when it was created,or why.Did the creation begin with the first entry into the book,or was it created in someone's mind beforehand.No w clever persons like yourself might know that it could have been created a hundred or so years ago during the lifetime of Maybrick,and probably was,others ,of a very limited intelligence like myself are of opinion it w as a hundred or so years afterwards.So if the latter, why a hundred or so years hence,and what might have been the sequence of events.Barrat gives one version,and if it is true,it began with an idea of one person and shared with two others,,but does not clearly explain whether Maybrick was a known likely suspect around whom a story could be constructed,and a diary the means of how it could be told,Or,was it a case of considering a diary as the means of incriminating a likely suspect,and then finding that suspect, and landing on Maybrick.
What do you think Ike?What section do you class the above as belonging to,navel-gazing,or specifics.

[Iconoclast]

I honestly think that to suggest the Diary was written by Bongo Barrett is more ludicrous than to suggest it was written by Maybrick. And surely if Barrett created the Diary then he's also responsible for the watch, so we now have him being capable of embedding old metal particles in the watch in such a way as to fool experts, and then selling the watch to a jewellers shop in the hope his engravings will be discovered and back up the Diary? And if he created (or was part of the nest of forgers who created) both then why make the signature on the watch match JM's but not the one in the Diary?? Did Barrett ever speak of the watch or Albert Johnson on record? Just wondering what his thoughts were.

All really good questions, Steven. I agree with you that the thought of Bongo producing this level of craft is a real stretch. If he did, he was also a truly brilliant actor, and if this is the case then he was a one-hit wonder master-forger and truly brilliant actor. Why did he save all of this skill and expertise to just this one venture? Why leave his acting prowess to a relatively late stage of his life?

The watch is a compelling piece of evidence but it doesn’t have to be a Bongo knock-off. In principle, and I think this may be an Orsam argument, Albert could have bought the watch as he described and someone such as that lovable rogue of a younger brother Robbie could have done a little creative work on the innards when Albert’s back was turned (after having read of the Maybrick ‘diary’ in the Liverpool Echo).

I certainly wouldn’t discard the watch, but equally I wouldn’t worry about having to link it to Bongo Barrett and his band of brigands.

PS I tried valiantly to get an apostrophe in my use of ‘wouldn’t’ but the editor wouldnt apparently let me do it. I did intend one and if one is there, great. Questionable editor, though!

Cheers,

Ike