Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[rjpalmer]

Ike, I'm not trying to be an difficult, but I'm having trouble with your line of reasoning. Please help.

According to your beliefs, sometime around March 1992 Barrett has obtained a genuine Victorian diary (if we believe Caz, this came from someone named Fast Eddy who got it from Battlecrease). It has no dates printed on either the cover or the individual pages, but it proports to be a diary. Suspicious, Mike spends 25 quid to obtain another genuine Victorian diary from HP Bookfinders that--according to you--he KNOWS will have dates stamped on the pages and cover (because everyone knows this, after all) thus confirming that the object he has in his possession is suspicious, since it should, by all rights, have dates printed on it! Which, however, Mike already knew would be the case before he shelled out 25 quid. Because...er...everyone knows this.

Come again? Is that what you're saying? Because, my dear boy, you've lost me in the fog.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, I'm not trying to be an difficult, but I'm having trouble with your line of reasoning. Please help.

According to your beliefs, sometime around March 1992 Barrett has obtained a genuine Victorian diary (if we believe Caz, this came from someone named Fast Eddy who got it from Battlecrease). It has no dates printed on either the cover or the individual pages, but it proports to be a diary. Suspicious, Mike spends 25 quid to obtain another genuine Victorian diary from HP Bookfinders that--according to you--he KNOWS will have dates stamped on the pages and cover (because everyone knows this, after all) thus confirming that the object he has in his possession is suspicious, since it should, by all rights, have dates printed on it! Which, however, Mike already knew would be the case before he shelled out 25 quid. Because...er...everyone knows this.

Come again? Is that what you're saying? Because, my dear boy, you've lost me in the fog.

rj, honestly - you are confusing me with someone you can easily bamboozle with nonsense!

Cut out all the irrelevant frippery in your post above. Where do you get "it purports to be a diary"? More to the point, what do you mean by "it purports to be a diary"? The Victorian document was (and is) a scrapbook. Please don't attempt to make it what it isn't in order to justify your previous puerile post in which you showed us a picture of a notebook and implied that it was a diary-without-dates simply because Charles Evans used a blank notebook to create his own version of a diary.

That's the key to your above post, but you have attempted to wrap it up in nonsense to hide that fact.

And it's not according to my beliefs. The floorboards provenance is just one of the two available to anyone who cares to pay attention. I cannot tell you which of the two is the true one, but I believe there is every reason to be that one of them is.

Ultimately, I don't know why Mike Barrett ordered a Victorian diary. Al I know is what everyone knows which is that diaries almost without exception have dates (including the year) on every page.

What is this idiotic line of reasoning, "the object he has in his possession is suspicious, since it should, by all rights, have dates printed on it" [because Barrett has ordered an actual Victorian diary]? I honestly don't think even Mike Barrett in his worst moments could have dredged the bottom of the logic barrel to produce that one.

I say this without malice, Roger - I honestly expect so much better of you than this.

[rjpalmer]

For you, Ike

--seeing that you don't care for my input, please allow the charming young woman in the video below win you over to a world hitherto unknown to you:

a world of Victorian diaries unblemished by useless stamps and printed dates. Why would a wise bookseller stamp a useless '1884' on the cover, knowing they he could sell his overstock the following year if he left it generic? I'm finding dozens upon dozens of Victorian Diaries without any such markings! Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCVHMCCG2Sg

[Iconoclast]

For you, Ike

--seeing that you don't care for my input, please allow the charming young woman in the video below win you over to a world hitherto unknown to you:

a world of Victorian diaries unblemished by useless stamps and printed dates. Why would a wise bookseller stamp a useless '1884' on the cover, knowing they he could sell his overstock the following year if he left it generic? I'm finding dozens upon dozens of Victorian Diaries without any such markings! Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCVHMCCG2Sg

What is wonderful about YouTube is that you can literally find a video about whatever you type in the search bar.

Cutting through all the sideshows, the issue is simply one of why Mike Barrett was so willing to accept what on the surface would be a more or less useless artefact (that is, a diary from 1890 or beyond with the year printed on each page).

The issue is not, 'Can Roger Palmer use YouTube in 2020 to immediately answer the question "Were some diaries in the Victorian period - like some diaries in 2020 - produced without years on each page?"'.

The issue is simply, 'How likely is it that - in the pre-internet age especially - Mike Barrett could have been so confident that the diary he received from his poorly-specified request would be undated that he could use it for his nascent hoax?'.

I think that the most rational and reasonable answer to this second question would say that - in 1992 - if you needed a Victorian diary which was undated on each page, you would absolutely had to have unequivocally specified it. We all understand that it suits your argument regarding this request for a Victorian diary to demonstrate what - in retrospect - is now easily-researched (that some Victorian diaries were undated, just as some are still today). What we really need is a link to the YouTube videos which explain to us why Mike Barrett in 1992 - in your opinion - was so certain that he would receive an undated diary that he didn't think to specify it thus.

At the risk of overstating this, the logical conclusion of your premise here is that because there were some Victorian diaries which were undated, the assumption must have been made that all Victorian diaries were therefore undated. I don't believe that that can ever be considered true. Not even by Bongo Barrett.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Not getting all philosophical, but does a diary only become a diary by virtue of someone using it as such? A blank book, Victorian or otherwise, is just that. A blank diary specifically has to have dates, a calendar, that's what makes it a diary. Anything else is a journal of sorts. It can be used as a diary, but it's not specifically a diary per se.

So if Mike "Bongo" Barrett set out to acquire a 'diary', was he thinking in terms of his intended use for a blank journal, as such, he somewhat absent mindedly asked for a diary, and on recieving said item, an actual diary, with dates, realised "bugger, I don't need a diary at all, I need a journal to make into a diary. What a pillock I am. Anne, can you lend me £25 until I've nicked some scrap? Oh, and by the way, we're going to be really pushed for time now". I mean, that ties in with the whole 'not the sharpest tool in the box' thing.

I agree, a Victorian bookmaker wouldn't necessarily date books because it limits their use and makes them unsaleable after a point. But a blank book is not a diary until it's used as such.

Or is that another Problem in Logic?

[Iconoclast]

Not getting all philosophical, but does a diary only become a diary by virtue of someone using it as such? A blank book, Victorian or otherwise, is just that. A blank diary specifically has to have dates, a calendar, that's what makes it a diary. Anything else is a journal of sorts. It can be used as a diary, but it's not specifically a diary per se.

So if Mike "Bongo" Barrett set out to acquire a 'diary', was he thinking in terms of his intended use for a blank journal, as such, he somewhat absent mindedly asked for a diary, and on recieving said item, an actual diary, with dates, realised "bugger, I don't need a diary at all, I need a journal to make into a diary. What a pillock I am. Anne, can you lend me £25 until I've nicked some scrap? Oh, and by the way, we're going to be really pushed for time now". I mean, that ties in with the whole 'not the sharpest tool in the box' thing.

I agree, a Victorian bookmaker wouldn't necessarily date books because it limits their use and makes them unsaleable after a point. But a blank book is not a diary until it's used as such.

Or is that another Problem in Logic?

Hi Abe,

No, you're spot-on. I was out walking the dogs there and was kicking myself for having failed to make this very point, so thank you for making it and so concisely.

A diary is clearly one or both of two things:

• The Base: any document which is formally named a 'Diary' or which has dated sections in the form of a formal diary - this is a diary even if it is blank
• The Record: anything which has been recorded (i.e, the content of the record) - crucially, this is NOT a diary if its base is blank (unless it is an example of the above)

I think you make a fair point about Bongo's request: he may very well have asked for a Victorian diary and had what we would call a notebook in mind (you wouldn't get a notebook with the year on it as that immediately becomes the very definition of a diary so in this scenario we would have to assume that it was the agent who added the dates '1880-1890'). The counter argument to diary manufacturers attempting to give longevity to their products by not dating them is that they won't sell as well: most of us buy a diary with dates in because we don't want to have to physically enter the dates each time we write and because of the obvious aesthetic appeal of a professionally-printed document.

But have we lost track of why we are even debating these issues? The advert in BookSeller (?) specifically mentioned a diary from 1880-1890. Does this categorically prove that Bongo was seeking a document to write his hoaxed diary in (I'm referring to the original version, not some mooted version to take to London to protect the original)? That is the only issue here. If you are someone who thinks it does, then you either haven't properly considered all of the options, or you are someone who has a significant problem with logic, or you have a vested interest in making that argument, or one or more of all three.

Great post, Abe - right on the nose.

Ike

[caz]

An interesting aspect of the transaction is that Graham was put down as a late payer. She delayed paying for the diary for quite a long time. Does this mean that she was initially refusing to cooperate with Barrett's little scheme, or was she deliberately and rather cleverly trying to diminish the paper trail by making it look like the red diary hadn't been purchased until after the 'Maybrick' journal had already been made public?

Morning R.J,

Could you direct your readers to the evidence you found for Anne Graham being marked down as a late payer, not Michael Barrett? Everything else you write above is pure speculation which relies on her knowledge of, or active involvement in the chain of events, from the initial telephone enquiry for a Victorian diary, made around March 10th 1992, to the resulting delivery of the little red 1891 diary towards the end of that month, and the fact that it wasn't paid for until the May. So you will understand why it's rather important to establish that she was in on this enquiry from the start. I have seen no evidence for it myself. As far as I know, Anne may have had no idea that Mike was trying to obtain such a diary; no idea about the advertisement, or that the 1891 diary was the result; and no idea that Mike had been billed £25 for it and been marked down as a late payer for failing to settle it. For all I know, Anne only found out about the purchase when Mike finally had to ask her for a cheque, two months later, and she wasn't best pleased about it because it was an expensive and ludicrous thing to have ordered. For all I know, she had no knowledge of the advert which had produced it, until Keith Skinner tracked it down with her help, and therefore no idea that the wording of it would add to the suspicions which had been growing along with Mike's tall tales.

So help us out here, R.J. How do you know Anne Graham was the one in control of ordering, obtaining and paying for this very odd little book? And please, please don't insult your readers' intelligence by saying you know because Mike said so. He was only able to say so because his wife, who had very recently divorced him, had been left to 'tidy up' his mess again by settling the bill.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I was thinking last evening along similar lines - that, to make a case for the hoax, March 9 1992 is a pivotal day. On that day, I also figured, some magic dust happened in The Saddle. An electrician mentions to Mike Barrett that he'd been working at Battlecrease House and the floorboards had been raised for the first time in a century. "They were in good nick for their age, mind", he says innocently. Mike Barrett has been compiling the Maybrick hoax since the centenary year (1989) and has it all typed-up on his PC at home. Suddenly, he realises that he has just been handed a smoking gun which would 'confirm' his hoax as real. So he races home, contacts Pan Books, they recommend Doreen Montgomery, so he 'phones her and says "Are you interested in the diary of Jack the Ripper?" and she says "Yes, how about you come to London with it on April 13 (?)". "Not a problem" replies Mike, slightly disingenuously.

Mike then has a month to source a Victorian document for Anne (or some other) to transcribe the typed-up text into. It doesn't matter how he gets his hands on the Victorian scrapbook, he just does. It doesn't matter if they have 30 days or 11 days to write the hoaxed account into the scrapbook, they just do.

And off Mike goes to London with his suitcase and his diary, and the rest is history. He has instantly become the greatest actor and greatest forger in history, and boy is the world about to know it.

Now, obviously I don't believe this account to be the truth of the matter. But - in deference to those who do - what possible argument against it is there?

Ike
Devil's Advocate Ltd.

The fact, Ike, that Mike's smoking gun, which would 'confirm' his hoax as real, was never used by him. Even when the golden opportunity arose, in 1993, to latch onto the rumours of the diary being found in Battlecrease by an electrician, he hotly denied it had come from the house and swore an affidavit to reinforce his claim that Tony Devereux had given him the diary with no explanation. He didn't have the wit to say that Tony could have got it from the Battlecrease electrician who lived in the same street and drank in the same pub! That would have put Mike in the clear, and if Paul Dodd had then claimed his 5%, it would have been small beer compared with the damage he inflicted on his future whisky tokens just a year later. There must have been a very compelling reason why Mike was so angry with the electrician who had handed him this smoking golden gun, and spent the rest of his life pouring cold water on it. What if Mike - shock, horror - was lying, when denying that the diary came from the house? What if he couldn't bear to cut out the middle man - his late mate - and admit that the diary had come to him direct from the electrician, not in 1991 but in March 1992?

And does the electrician with the golden gun have a third nipple? I think we need to know.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz, as someone who knew her, can you tell us if Anne has ever made any public comment regarding the Diary since she started her new life? I suppose I mean her life after she co-authored with Shirley Harrison.

Graham

As Ike said, Graham, I think you meant Carol Emmas?

I'm not sure Anne has made any public comment since then, if you don't count the interview she agreed to do with Keith, Seth and I for Ripper Diary, around 2002, when she said that would be the last time she would give anyone an interview on the subject of the diary. IIRC we were in The Liffey on Renshaw Street at the time, which displayed the following notice by the bar: NO TRACK SUITS AFTER SIX-THIRTY.

Luckily for all four of us, we wound up the interview earlier than that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

The fact, Ike, that Mike's smoking gun, which would 'confirm' his hoax as real, was never used by him. Even when the golden opportunity arose, in 1993, to latch onto the rumours of the diary being found in Battlecrease by an electrician, he hotly denied it had come from the house and swore an affidavit to reinforce his claim that Tony Devereux had given him the diary with no explanation.

Thanks for clarifying that, Caz. So, he created a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper, was possibly handed the most smoky of guns, and yet declined to use it to support his hoax. Possibly - partly - as some kind of homage to his mate Tony D.? Hmmm. That's a hard one to get your head around. The world waited 35,000+ days for a record of the floorboards being lifted to appear and on that very same day Mike first signalled his hoax to the world, and yet he made no attempt to link the two in order to cement his confession (when it came)? I'm genuinely struggling to make sense of that.

And yet, it's such an obvious hoax written by Mike and Anne Barrett, isn't it?

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Not getting all philosophical, but does a diary only become a diary by virtue of someone using it as such? A blank book, Victorian or otherwise, is just that. A blank diary specifically has to have dates, a calendar, that's what makes it a diary. Anything else is a journal of sorts. It can be used as a diary, but it's not specifically a diary per se.

So if Mike "Bongo" Barrett set out to acquire a 'diary', was he thinking in terms of his intended use for a blank journal, as such, he somewhat absent mindedly asked for a diary, and on recieving said item, an actual diary, with dates, realised "bugger, I don't need a diary at all, I need a journal to make into a diary. What a pillock I am. Anne, can you lend me £25 until I've nicked some scrap? Oh, and by the way, we're going to be really pushed for time now". I mean, that ties in with the whole 'not the sharpest tool in the box' thing.

I agree, a Victorian bookmaker wouldn't necessarily date books because it limits their use and makes them unsaleable after a point. But a blank book is not a diary until it's used as such.

Or is that another Problem in Logic?

I think I love you.

[caz]

Thanks for clarifying that, Caz. So, he created a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper, was possibly handed the most smoky of guns, and yet declined to use it to support his hoax. Possibly - partly - as some kind of homage to his mate Tony D.? Hmmm. That's a hard one to get your head around. The world waited 35,000+ days for a record of the floorboards being lifted to appear and on that very same day Mike first signalled his hoax to the world, and yet he made no attempt to link the two in order to cement his confession (when it came)? I'm genuinely struggling to make sense of that.

And yet, it's such an obvious hoax written by Mike and Anne Barrett, isn't it?

Cheers,

Ike

Mike couldn't link the two events, Ike, if he never knew about any electrical work going on in Battlecrease on the same day that he phoned Doreen about the diary. He appeared to put two and two together the following Spring, when Paul Dodd revealed that some electrical work had been done, and to suspect he had been landed with hot property, but I don't think it ever dawned on him that it was so smoking hot that it had been half-inched that very morning.

In fact, I'm not sure anyone made the March 9th connection before Keith Skinner was shown the relevant time sheets.

Even the electricians were in the dark [sorry!] about the significance of that date and the diary's very own double event.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Even the electricians were in the dark [sorry!] about the significance of that date and the diary's very own double event.

That gave me a much needed laugh. Thank, Caz.

c.d.

[caz]

You are most welcome, c.d.

Some would not believe it, by my aim is to please.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Not getting all philosophical, but does a diary only become a diary by virtue of someone using it as such? A blank book, Victorian or otherwise, is just that. A blank diary specifically has to have dates, a calendar, that's what makes it a diary. Anything else is a journal of sorts. It can be used as a diary, but it's not specifically a diary per se.

So if Mike "Bongo" Barrett set out to acquire a 'diary', was he thinking in terms of his intended use for a blank journal, as such, he somewhat absent mindedly asked for a diary, and on recieving said item, an actual diary, with dates, realised "bugger, I don't need a diary at all, I need a journal to make into a diary. What a pillock I am. Anne, can you lend me £25 until I've nicked some scrap? Oh, and by the way, we're going to be really pushed for time now". I mean, that ties in with the whole 'not the sharpest tool in the box' thing.

I agree, a Victorian bookmaker wouldn't necessarily date books because it limits their use and makes them unsaleable after a point. But a blank book is not a diary until it's used as such.

Or is that another Problem in Logic?

I don't think we should underestimate the potential significance of your observations, ABE.

This is a chicken and egg situation. Had Mike already seen the scrapbook - which appeared to have been used for Jack the Ripper's diary - when he made his enquiry for an actual Victorian diary? Or did he only manage to acquire the scrapbook - minus the diary - after the useless little 1891 diary turned up?

The diary as we know it is entirely undated apart from the final entry - May 3rd 1889. If the text was prepared in advance, and the only remaining task by March 1992 was to find something suitable to contain it and to write it out by hand, I think it might be reasonable to assume that the author had left all the other drafted entries undated, never had any intention of dating them, and therefore the last thing they would have wanted was an actual diary with dates printed in it to show its age, which would almost certainly have required a complete, last-minute rejig of the entire text.

What Mike [and/or Anne] would have really, really needed to see was just a plain old book of the right period - so manufactured at any time before 1888 - with enough blank, undated pages of a suitable size to contain all the undated entries prepared earlier. It wouldn't matter if the early part of this old book had been used as a diary, or for any other purpose, because those pages could be ripped out. But there would need to be enough unused pages, running consecutively, which really were blank, and the surface had to be suitable to write on with the pen and ink - also prepared earlier - for the final creation process to begin.

Not much to ask for, was it? Surely not beyond Anne's capabilities to fashion a request that might have more than a cat in hell's chance of bearing fruit? So if we assume it was Mike who made the enquiry, because dates were never his strong point, and it didn't dawn on him that a request for a Victorian diary might produce one with Victorian dates in it, he certainly pulled himself together and learned his lesson fast when the bloody thing arrived, if he then had to start from scratch and try to find precisely what he should have asked for. But miracles do happen, and so it came to pass that within just a couple of days of realising his mistake, Mike is supposed to have seen the scrapbook up for auction just before the calendar turned from March to April, and brought it home so Anne could whip out her writing materials, get the undated entries written up in the undated old book, and have it done and thoroughly dusted in time for its April 13th debut in London.

Just like that, as Tommy Cooper would have said.

Love,

Caz
X