The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Wickerman]

Mr Orsam already showed the anachronistic usage of 'one-off' points to a modern hoax. There's no nineteenth century record of anyone using 'one-off' in the context it was used in the diary.

There is now though!

Years ago when I first read the Diary one expression that caught my eye was "call you", if I remember it was used where one person was going to phone someone. It struck me this is a modern term, hardly likely to be used so early before the phone became the common tool it is today.
In fact, I always took "call you" to be more of an Americanism, even when I grew up in the 50-60's people would still say "phone you", not "call you".

By the way, in your previous post, in response to the question, New Hoax or Old Hoax, you wrote, "neither".

What did you mean, it's not a hoax at all?

[Abby Normal]

so lets see.. Barrett could write articles for a magazine, get them published, work, go to the pub, go to the library, read write, think(apparently), have a wife and relationships, create crosswords, drive a car, come up with complicated lies and stories about the diary, fill out affidavits, deal with lawyers and business people, search for Victorian diaries with blank pages, work a word processor, give interviews, be the sole originator of the provenance of the diary etc etc etc etc, but was incapable of actually conceiving and or writing this half assed hoax?!? (and probably having some help from his wife.) really? OK

gag.

and re his love of the pub-the pub! Its practically a proving ground for yarns and tall tales.

what a character he was-

There once was a man named Barrett
Whos nose was as long as a ferret
He said-I found Jack!
Then took it all back
And flew away on a giant green parrot


and yes, this non mystery has all the subtlety of a turd on the floor. But do carry on-Im sure youll find the real culprit some day.

[Harry D]

Years ago when I first read the Diary one expression that caught my eye was "call you", if I remember it was used where one person was going to phone someone. It struck me this is a modern term, hardly likely to be used so early before the phone became the common tool it is today.
In fact, I always took "call you" to be more of an Americanism, even when I grew up in the 50-60's people would still say "phone you", not "call you".

By the way, in your previous post, in response to the question, New Hoax or Old Hoax, you wrote, "neither".

What did you mean, it's not a hoax at all?

That first paragraph was mine. Spider just did a lousy job of quoting it.

He's pro-diarist.

[Spider]

"What did you mean, it's not a hoax at all?"

Correct. I believe the Diary to be genuine and by James Maybrick. There is more to it than meets the eye if only people took the time to actually read each bit of it detail.

[Eliza]

Eliza,

I'm just going to target this at you as you were the one who started this idiotically presumptuous thread.

Please reply to this post and clarify for us all how many Maybrick-related publications you have read - and by 'read', I mean more or less fully digested every idea, nuance, physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Please list them by name (and please put in parentheses how many times you have read each one). I'm guessing this will be the quickest thing you do all day so I don't think it's going to be a lot to ask.

If the Victorian scrapbook is a hoax then it is absolutely unequivocally, incontrovertibly, etc., a modern hoax, written post-1987 and the publication of Fido's most referenced work. There is absolutely no room within the evidence for any other reasonable alternative. None. The only alternative is hoax-at-the-time and there wasn't a person alive - with the possible exception of Michael Maybrick who had absolutely no reason to create a piece of work which could potentially ruin his extremely profitable career and his high standing in London society - who could have written it given its internal content. I don't need to clarify what that internal content is, of course, because of the long list of books you've read on the subject and which you are going to clarify for us in your reply to this.

If the Victorian scrapbook is a hoax, it is a modern hoax. But here's the news, Eliza - it has not been shown to be a hoax. On the contrary, it continues to be the proof we have all craved for the identity of Jack the Ripper. If Society's Pillar is not on your list, I strongly recommend you put it there. If you read it and you remain so certain that the scrapbook and watch are part of a grand hoax which has still not been proven after 27 long years, then you're too hardcore for me. If, on the other hand, you read it and come back to us and say "My apologies - I should have asked 'If the Maybrick diary was a hoax ...'".

It is precisely this sort of lazy acceptance of the safe, convenient angle that caused me to write Pillar in the first place.

Ike

Hey--as we say in America-- "chill."

My post was intended as a continuation of a former (first) post, wherein I briefly stated a few reasons why I think the diary was forged, and offered my own theory of its origin.

No, I haven’t read the work you cite, but my opinion rests on the following:

-The diary’s handwriting did not match Maybrick's writing in his will or in a marriage register. Further, the diarist references Ripper letters he allegedly wrote to police. All the letters referenced differed amongst themselves in handwriting, and were in different handwritings from both the will and the diary.

-Multiple anachronisms, which have been noted here previously.

- Scraps of paper and glue that show the old scrapbook was used as a Victorian-era photo album, not a diary.

-Michael Barrett’s detailed confession that he and his wife were the forgers.

My theory is that Barrett and his wife, with help from an accomplice, came into possession of letters or journal entries from Maybrick’s former home, and incorporated them into the “diary,” adding various references to the Whitechapel murders. Barrett then gave a false account of his acquisition of the diary, perhaps to protect the procurer of the Maybrick writings.

This theory would explain why Barrett, and maybe his accomplices, were able to create a document that, despite its shortcomings, sometimes has a ring of authenticity, due to its referencing of many facts of Maybrick’s life, and its convincing portrayal of a man consumed by jealousy.

[Iconoclast]

Years ago when I first read the Diary one expression that caught my eye was "call you", if I remember it was used where one person was going to phone someone. It struck me this is a modern term, hardly likely to be used so early before the phone became the common tool it is today.
In fact, I always took "call you" to be more of an Americanism, even when I grew up in the 50-60's people would still say "phone you", not "call you".

I suggest you read Society's Pillar, Wickerman. It will give you a couple of other examples of 'call' used in this context from the Maybrick case.

By the way, in your previous post, in response to the question, New Hoax or Old Hoax, you wrote, "neither".

What did you mean, it's not a hoax at all?

And Mrs Iconoclast wonders why I'm losing my hair ...

[Iconoclast]

"What did you mean, it's not a hoax at all?"

Correct. I believe the Diary to be genuine and by James Maybrick. There is more to it than meets the eye if only people took the time to actually read each bit of it detail.

And there, Spider, my old arachnoid chum, is the problem here ...

[Iconoclast]

Hey--as we say in America-- "chill."

Wow - what a coincidence, so does more or less the entire rest of the world!

Seriously, Eliza, I appreciate that any old Tom, Dick, and Harry get to post on the Casebook, but play fair here - do some research before you post your trenchant thoughts because when you do so many other ill-informed readers think you're coming from a place of knowledge and then start to believe what you're saying has substance.

Although Society's Pillar is definitely not for people as ill-researched as you, you will get a few hints and tips from the brief intro into which Maybrick books you really ought to read first.

[Iconoclast]

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying how wonderful it is to have Caz back!

[Eliza]

Wow - what a coincidence, so does more or less the entire rest of the world!

Seriously, Eliza, I appreciate that any old Tom, Dick, and Harry get to post on the Casebook, but play fair here - do some research before you post your trenchant thoughts because when you do so many other ill-informed readers think you're coming from a place of knowledge and then start to believe what you're saying has substance.

Although Society's Pillar is definitely not for people as ill-researched as you, you will get a few hints and tips from the brief intro into which Maybrick books you really ought to read first.

My post was intended to contrast the Diary with other works of fiction and non-fiction from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Therefore my frame of reference was other fiction and non fiction works from those eras--with the intention of showing that the Diary was not consistent with those works--and was therefore not an old hoax. I did not reference "Society's Pillar" because it was not from those eras, and was not relevant to the "old hoax" theory.

My belief that it is a new hoax is based on other l evidence, i.e., the many different handwritings, the anachronisms, a detailed confession, etc., is recounted in a different post. If you believe this evidence is faulty, why not address these issues here?

[Iconoclast]

My belief that it is a new hoax is based on other l evidence, i.e., the many different handwritings, the anachronisms, a detailed confession, etc., is recounted in a different post. If you believe this evidence is faulty, why not address these issues here?

It was precisely in order to avoid the endless rehashing of the case here on the Casebook that I wrote Society's Pillar. It answers every question I believe you can possibly have about the Maybrick scrapbook, but if it doesn't let me know and I will add to it.

Can't say fairer than that, now can I?

[Kattrup]

Just for clarity, Kattrup (and prompted by someone else's thought), who exactly do you believe these fooled people to be exactly? By actual name, ideally. Who has been fooled by Barrett and then wasted a quarter of a century seeking to hide that fact through denial and obfuscation?

I hope you're not simply going to cite people who are do not accept that he was a master-forger?

Hi Iconoclast

My only interest in discussing the diary is as a social phenomenon, i.e. why would some people choose to believe, or pretend to choose to believe, that the diary is a mystery when it so clearly is not.

It has no provenance, the man who brought it forth went shopping for blank Victorian diaries first and he confessed to forging it. How anyone could have a problem concluding that he made it is the true mystery. But of course, if we try (or pretend to try) to find the forger while actively excluding as candidate the real forger, the diary's origins will be somewhat hard to pin down!

Essentially, the only counterargument is that he was not capable of forging it. This impression is, of course, wrong, but apparently comes from personal meetings with him, or (in your case I believe) from listening to recordings. Which is why I wrote that people apparently have been fooled by Barrett for many a year.

Since it to me is fairly inconceivable that anyone applying Occam's razor would not conclude that Barrett forged it, I'm left with idle speculation as to the motives of such persons.
One motive, of course, is money. The person(s) controlling the diary and/or participating in the diary industry, as it were, are not interested in any tests or decisive answers, since it would prove them wrong and interest would dwindle and there would be no more editions of the diary or "True Story" or "Inside the Mystery" or whatever to sell.

Another motive, as I mentioned, could be personal pride. For someone to buy into the diary hoax, to treat it seriously and spend time and energy and maybe money on it means they're invested in it and they have a hard time realising they were duped. For some, an endupement now lasting decades. So they keep insisting it's a big mystery.

As I said, it's just my own little personal theory about what motivates people to keep discussing this silly diary. Nothing major, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast

My only interest in discussing the diary is as a social phenomenon, i.e. why would some people choose to believe, or pretend to choose to believe, that the diary is a mystery when it so clearly is not.

Unproven, so why claim it as though it were never so well proven?

It has no provenance

Which early-1990s newspaper article are you relying on for your argument here? There are not one but two provenances. How many do you require before the sum of them becomes none in your world?

he confessed to forging it.

Yawn, yawn. See further down for my correction of another of your lazy interpretations.

How anyone could have a problem concluding that he made it is the true mystery.

Well, imagine a version of the world where Michael Barrett actually presented a case which was backed by some evidence (any would have done) in his brilliant expose. Imagine that world. It isn't the world, unfortunately for your argument. In the world, he 'confessed' whilst in an alcoholic stupor and retracted it as soon as he sobered up. I'm guessing that's too much for you to rationalise as you appear to have ignored it (oh, please tell me you did actually know this was the case???).

But of course, if we try (or pretend to try) to find the forger while actively excluding as candidate the real forger, the diary's origins will be somewhat hard to pin down!

Or you could be seriously misinformed and ill-informed and therefore quite wrong. It's called 'the alternative'.

This impression is, of course, wrong, but apparently comes from personal meetings with him, or (in your case I believe) from listening to recordings.

This is so wearisome. I asked people to play the Barrett recordings because he cogently and rather self-effacingly explains how he confessed to writing the scrapbook whilst he was pissing the profits up a wall. Obviously, you don't appear to have known that he retracted his drunken claims, and I'm rather guessing now that you have not played the recording?

Since it to me is fairly inconceivable that anyone applying Occam's razor would not conclude that Barrett forged it

This is not how Occam's Razor works. Barrett's forgery is not the simpler of the two theories here! If it was down to William's way, you'd be pro-Maybrick right now (as belief in the scrapbook's authenticity requires fewer assumptions than belief than someone forged it).

I'm left with idle speculation as to the motives of such persons.

No you're not. You're left with a wilful attempt to poison the well with false assertions and extremely dodgy logic.

As I said, it's just my own little personal theory about what motivates people to keep discussing this silly diary.

But riddle me this, then: what motivates you to make such weakly-constructed arguments about a document you haven't read a single tome regarding? Not even a word, I'm guessing. You haven't read Harrison (I or II), Feldman, Ripper Diary, et cetera. If you are not a dilettante, convince us with a list of your research reading into this case.

Nothing major, I'm sure you'll agree.

I would, yes.

[Harry D]

There are people willing to blow themselves up because they literally believe in a book written a thousand years before they were born. Even the most intelligent people in the world can fall prey to the wildest self-deceptions. Iconoclast is patently not an idiot, as his sophist arguments will attest to, but he still believes that this obvious hoax is the genuine confession of the Whitechapel murderer. Despite the anomalies, the uncertain provenance, the confession, the photo album etc., his faith is not shaken. Then again, he might just be trolling and revels in the verbal jousting on here.

[Harry D]

caz Please remind me where you stand on this again. Old hoax?