Who were they?

[FISHY1118]

Imagine a world where one or both of you posted something actually constructive on the subject of James Maybrick?

Were still waiting that from you.

I.E something else other than the diary and watch that would elevate JM as a legitimate suspect.

[erobitha]

Imagine a world where one or both of you posted something actually constructive on the subject of James Maybrick?

This pops into my head when I see either of them post.

[Iconoclast]

P.S. Seeing that Ike has KS within earshot, this would be a handy time to confirm what evidence there is that Martin Fido was secretly on the fence about the diary's authenticity but didn't reveal this out of fear of reprisal from the academic community. I trust Ike's readers will be eager to gauge the accuracy of this allegation.

Rather than ignore difficult questions as so many others do, I'm happy to address them if I can but I was genuinely struggling to remember what I had said that led RJ to think I was accusing Martin Fido of being secretly on the fence. I have no doubt that RJ will now remind us (using direct quotations from me on the actual subject or else mud quotations designed to imply something without saying anything).

In the meantime, I had thought that my view may have been influenced by something Keith Skinner had said ages ago about Martin which I had potentially misunderstood. This is what Keith said this morning when I asked him to clarify it:

Here's what Martin was concerned about...

The revised edition of The Jack The Ripper A To Z was commissioned and published very quickly in 1994 as a result of the diary. Martin's view was that we should not give any weight to the theory of JM being JTR as the diary had a suspect provenance - and the whole notion was ludicrous. Martin was worried that we would lose our credibility in the eyes of people like Don Rumbelow and Richard Whittington-Egan. Paul and I argued vehemently against this and I personally didn't much care if I lost my credibility as I didn't consider I had any in the first place, not being an academic or historian. So I suggested the approach to that particular entry should be just to summarise the facts as we knew them and not to offer any opinion.

This view from Keith is not exactly how I remembered the original version (for example, I don't recall thinking that Martin thought 'the whole thing was ludicrous', but I could have misremembered, of course), but that doesn't matter as it's effectively the same. Martin Fido was concerned about his academic reputation and therefore his actions reflected someone who would not entertain the possibility of authenticity regardless of any other mitigating circumstances therefore it would be difficult to be certain that Martin was completely against the possibility of authenticity which is what I feel I posted way back when.

Now, RJ will soon show us whether I literally said that Martin was secretly on the fence (which was wrong if I stated this) or whether he had inferred this from the sort of comments I just made above. Let me get my correction in now - academics such as Martin Fido had a strong vested interest in being on the side of inauthenticity because that was the safest side to be on, however this does not therefore preclude the possibility that Martin was more 'on the fence' than he let on. It doesn't mean that I think he was 'on the fence', merely that he may have been more on the fence privately than he would ever express publicly.

[rjpalmer]

Let me get my correction in now - academics such as Martin Fido had a strong vested interest in being on the side of inauthenticity because that was the safest side to be on, however this does not therefore preclude the possibility that Martin was more 'on the fence' than he let on. It doesn't mean that I think he was 'on the fence', merely that he may have been more on the fence privately than he would ever express publicly.

What a cowardly and self-deluded statement. I don't need to hunt down your previous slur, Tom, because the above will suffice, and you've filled the forums with so much ill-considered bombast that it might take me a few days to locate it.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity can go into the archives and see what Martin Fido thought about the Maybrick Hoax--that it was an obviously fake. At one point Martin even wrote that he "agreed" with nearly everything Melvin Harris had written about it. He concluded that the phrase 'tin match box empty' signaled the diary was a post-1987 fake. On one occasion, Martin even publicly called for Anne Graham to take a polygraph test. There is not one ounce of doubt about where Martin stood.

In the face of this, how can it be anything other than sleazy for you to suggest--without a scrap of evidence--that Fido 'may' have been 'more on the fence privately' than he let on? What possible reason do you have to draw this conclusion, other than your own self-deluded desires?

It is a cowardly and mealy-mouth way to imply that Martin was intellectually dishonest when addressing this forum, motivated by secret self-protection.

Be better, Tom. If you can't see how cowardly this is, drink more coffee, or go speak with your pastor.

Don't try to hoist your own delusions onto someone who is no longer around to clarify his position---not that Fido would need to do so, since he made his beliefs so patently obvious.

[rjpalmer]

Well, I feel a little thin-skinned this morning.

Now Al B might, like RJ, have no interest in the people involved beyond seeing them as one dimensional figures who only exist to be moulded into whatever personalities RJ wants them to be in order to make his theories work?

We don't know if Mike panicked.

Damn, Keith.

If the writing in black is yours, which it apparently is (but there is always some slight uncertainty, because, unlike other contributors to this forum, you don't simply log-on, preferring to trickle encouragement to Tom Mitchell from behind the scenes) then I can only say that it is also an example of intellectual dishonesty.

In your email, you talk all around the issue, referring to events of 30 years ago, but you don't really offer any explanations for what we are currently discussing.

But, I think it is fair to say, you passively support Tom Mitchell's barmy theory by implying that it is I, and not Tom, who is 'moulding.'

Let's look at this.

Let me quote your own words.

"We don't know if Mike panicked."

Absolutely! And who wrote that Mike DID panic?

Tom Mitchell in his preceding four or five posts.

So why are you warning Al Bundy and misrepresenting me instead of chiding Tom?

Isn't it Tom who is moulding Mike into the "panicked" pub crawler that he needs for his theory to work (not that it does work) ?

So why aim your barbs in my direction? I'm looking at the facts.

Let's cut to the chase.

If, as I believe, you are lending your support to Tom Mitchell's illogical theory, then can you answer the following question?

Why did Mike Barrett want this 'surrogate' diary to be unused?

Note that Tom Mitchell entirely avoids this question. He can't explain it.

The same is true of Caroline, who likes to pretend or to insinuate that Mike wanted a diary with twenty blank pages so he could waive an invoice under Eddie's nose.

But Mike didn't want that.

That's not what Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder tells us.

First and foremost, Mike requested an UNUSED DIARY.




Let me put the following in bold, for it is important.

To anyone who is being fair-minded and analytical, Mike would have been happy if Martin Earl supplied him with an entirely unused (ie., blank) diary.

Bear that in mind, because people here (not me) like to muddy that fact.

If Earl couldn't find one, Mike would settle for a partially blank one, or at worst, twenty blank pages, which was the absolute minimum.

That's what the advertisement is telling us.

Make it work, Keith.

Please explain why Mike Barrett would have believed that an entirely blank diary would be an appropriate "surrogate" if the inquisitive owner of stolen goods came knocking?

Or expressed differently, why would Mike have assumed that the owner would expect to find the stolen diary to be unused?

It makes no sense. Moulding Mike into a panicked pub crawler or mental vegetable (as someone told Alec Voller) doesn't make it work, either.

Before this order to Martin Earl was placed (and David Barrat has proved that the order must have been phoned-in almost immediately after Mike talked to Doreen) Mike already knew that the alleged diary (I say alleged, because there is no compelling evidence that it even existed yet) was to be The Diary of Jack the Ripper, because he said so in his phone call to Doreen.

Thus, no matter how Tom talks around the issue, it makes no sense that Barrett wanted this 'surrogate' to be unused.

Perhaps you can offer an explanation?

[erobitha]

Well, I feel a little thin-skinned this morning.



Damn, Keith.

If the writing in black is yours, which it apparently is (but there is always some slight uncertainty, because, unlike other contributors to this forum, you don't simply log-on, preferring to trickle encouragement to Tom Mitchell from behind the scenes) then I can only say that it is also an example of intellectual dishonesty.

In your email, you talk all around the issue, referring to events of 30 years ago, but you don't really offer any explanations for what we are currently discussing.

But, I think it is fair to say, you passively support Tom Mitchell's barmy theory by implying that it is I, and not Tom, who is 'moulding.'

Let's look at this.

Let me quote your own words.

"We don't know if Mike panicked."

Absolutely! And who wrote that Mike DID panic?

Tom Mitchell in his preceding four or five posts.

So why are you warning Al Bundy and misrepresenting me instead of chiding Tom?

Isn't it Tom who is moulding Mike into the "panicked" pub crawler that he needs for his theory to work (not that it does work) ?

So why aim your barbs in my direction? I'm looking at the facts.

Let's cut to the chase.

If, as I believe, you are lending your support to Tom Mitchell's illogical theory, then can you answer the following question?

Why did Mike Barrett want this 'surrogate' diary to be unused?

Note that Tom Mitchell entirely avoids this question. He can't explain it.

The same is true of Caroline, who likes to pretend or to insinuate that Mike wanted a diary with twenty blank pages so he could waive an invoice under Eddie's nose.

But Mike didn't want that.

That's not what Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder tells us.

First and foremost, Mike requested an UNUSED DIARY.




Let me put the following in bold, for it is important.

To anyone who is being fair-minded and analytical, Mike would have been happy if Martin Earl supplied him with an entirely unused (ie., blank) diary.

Bear that in mind, because people here (not me) like to muddy that fact.

If Earl couldn't find one, Mike would settle for a partially blank one, or at worst, twenty blank pages, which was the absolute minimum.

That's what the advertisement is telling us.

Make it work, Keith.

Please explain why Mike Barrett would have believed that an entirely blank diary would be an appropriate "surrogate" if the inquisitive owner of stolen goods came knocking?

Or expressed differently, why would Mike have assumed that the owner would expect to find the stolen diary to be unused?

It makes no sense. Moulding Mike into a panicked pub crawler or mental vegetable (as someone told Alec Voller) doesn't make it work, either.

Before this order to Martin Earl was placed (and David Barrat has proved that the order must have been phoned-in almost immediately after Mike talked to Doreen) Mike already knew that the alleged diary (I say alleged, because there is no compelling evidence that it even existed yet) was to be The Diary of Jack the Ripper, because he said so in his phone call to Doreen.

Thus, no matter how Tom talks around the issue, it makes no sense that Barrett wanted this 'surrogate' to be unused.

Perhaps you can offer an explanation?

The ad says used or partly used RJ. You made a long-winded statement about the desire for an unused diary only for the evidence to undermine you. It says nothing about unused being preferred. You have applied that judgement.

If anything, it supports the idea of him not being that fussy about what he got. Which, for a hoaxer, is a little haphazard.

[Abby Normal]

The ad says used or partly used RJ. You made a long-winded statement about the desire for an unused diary only for the evidence to undermine you. It says nothing about unused being preferred. You have applied that judgement.

If anything, it supports the idea of him not being that fussy about what he got. Which, for a hoaxer, is a little haphazard.

OMG. what part of "unused" dont you understand ?

[erobitha]

OMG. what part of "unused" dont you understand ?

OMG. what part of partly used, don't you understand?

[rjpalmer]

The ad says used or partly used RJ. You made a long-winded statement about the desire for an unused diary only for the evidence to undermine you. It says nothing about unused being preferred. You have applied that judgement.

More poor reading comprehension and illogic from Jay Hartley. Who would have thought?

Who will deny, based on Martin Earl's ad, that Mike Barrett wouldn't have been completely happy with receiving an entirely UNUSED diary?

It's undeniable.

That's the point that Hartley is dancing around.

Mike's request allowed for an unused diary to be sent to him, and indeed, an almost entirely blank diary was sent to him (we've been told), so I ask Keith again, how does Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder do anything other than mock Tom's bizarre theory?

Based on Earl's ad, an entirely blank diary would have been peachy.

And what criminal on earth (outside of Tom's imagination), having received stolen goods, would go out and buy an item in case he had to ADMIT to having received stolen (or suspected stolen) goods?

It's barking madness. The admission alone would have sent alarm bells ringing. To use Keith's terminology, Tom must 'mould' Mike into a panicked mental vegetable.

But not only that, Mike went out and bought a BLANK diary for his surrogate, which would have immediately signaled to any investigator that Mike was in the market for something consistent with the raw materials needed for a hoax, which in turn would raise grave suspicions about the scrapbook that Mike was already planning to bring to London, per his phone call to Doreen.

Indeed, in his recent email, Keith fully admits that had Mike's request to Martin Earl been known, the Diary might not have been published.

Yet, as I already noted, Mike producing this red diary and waving it in the air would have been akin to dialing up Martin Earl and handing the phone to Dodd, Feldman, or whomever came inquiring about the Battlecrease Caper.

Maybe Keith can explain it better than Tom or Jay (but I doubt it) but whatever the case, it is still a dog's breakfast.

[erobitha]

More poor reading comprehension and illogic from Jay Hartley. Who would have thought?

Who will deny, based on Martin Earl's ad, that Mike Barrett wouldn't have been completely happy with receiving an entirely UNUSED diary?

It's undeniable.

That's the point that Hartley is dancing around.

Mike's request allowed for an unused diary to be sent to him, and indeed, an almost entirely blank diary was sent to him (we've been told), so I ask Keith again, how does Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookfinder do anything other than mock Tom's bizarre theory?

Based on Earl's ad, an entirely blank diary would have been peachy.

And what criminal on earth (outside of Tom's imagination), having received stolen goods, would go out and buy an item in case he had to ADMIT to having received stolen (or suspected stolen) goods?

It's barking madness. The admission alone would have sent alarm bells ringing. To use Keith's terminology, Tom must 'mould' Mike into a panicked mental vegetable.

But not only that, Mike went out and bought a BLANK diary for his surrogate, which would have immediately signaled to any investigator that Mike was in the market for something consistent with the raw materials needed for a hoax, which in turn would raise grave suspicions about the scrapbook that Mike was already planning to bring to London, per his phone call to Doreen.

Indeed, in his recent email, Keith fully admits that had Mike's request to Martin Earl been known, the Diary might not have been published.

Yet, as I already noted, Mike producing this red diary and waving it in the air would have been akin to dialing up Martin Earl and handing the phone to Dodd, Feldman, or whomever came inquiring about the Battlecrease Caper.

Maybe Keith can explain it better than Tom or Jay (but I doubt it) but whatever the case, it is still a dog's breakfast.

Nothing wrong with my reading and comprehension, old chap.

I am not a very good dancer, which might surprise you.

I am not arguing on the side of anyone but myself RJ. Other people are perfectly capable of arguing their own corners. Your banding groups of people together as one single sentient "Diary Defender" being has become rather tiresome. I do not speak for them. They do not speak for me.

Let me break it down for you and others to digest:

1) The advert states "Unused" or "Partly Used". I will class this as a BROAD request. Why not just unused?
2) "Diary dating from 1880-1890." BROAD request. A whole ten years of broadness, in fact. Not only by date range but it also throws in the possibility of appointment diaries too as a potential option. It does not rule it out
3) The oddly specific "Must have at least 20 blank pages". SPECIFIC request. This is the only real specific request and why so much debate has been had around this point. This is the button RJ and Orsam love pushing as if it is some kind of absolute proof of an intent to hoax.

Master forger Mike Barrett, with no history of ever forging anything before in his entire life, sets broad parameters for the diary type and date range. Surely, a forger would know this is the most important thing to focus on if the hoax is to get passed the sniff test. These are the elements he needed to be really specific about. He wasn't.

Twenty blank pages is an odd request. Mike did odd things. Mike thought odd things. Mike said odd things. For all we know, Mike thought he could write gibberish on those pages and pass it off as being the very thing he had witnessed.

Lastly, I re-raise this point. Why, oh why, oh why wait until around the 9th of March to look for a diary at all? The only reason is that Eddie was at Battlecrease House. So why suddenly jump into action over a provenance he never even mentioned or alluded to? Why not place the ad a month before or a year before? Why that week? Because Eddie was at Battlecrease. I know it. You know it. What you haven't shown is why that even matters to Mike at that stage.

[Iconoclast]

An unused diary from 1880-1890 would give Barrett something to use as a surrogate if anyone came for his newly acquired scrapbook. He might intend to attempt to simulate the actual scrapbook (so that he got to keep the real one) but that would only have been possible if he received an 1880-1889 diary. Still, an 1890 one could still be used for surrogacy only without Barrett attempting to copy any of the scrapbook into it.

A partially-used diary would serve the same purpose assuming there were a sufficient number of blank pages in it. Now, I have argued before that at least twenty blank pages would not be adequate, but RJ himself has argued that Barrett asked for 'at least' and - even if he only got twenty - apparently that was enough if they were A4. I think that was RJ's argument, but I'm willing to be corrected (ideally without the screaming).

On the other hand, if Barrett had received a diary with just the twenty blank pages and it was smaller than he'd hoped for, he could always write parts of the scrapbook into it (whilst keeping the real one for himself).

If anyone had enquired before he went to London, and he panicked, he could have cancelled his trip and put it back many weeks or months.

I'm trying to fill in the gaps which - honestly - I think a five year old could work out for themselves. Of course, that five year-old would have to be sans agenda.

I think I've said this a few times now - we cannot possibly know what Mike Barrett's state of mind was on March 9, 1992, but what I know for certain is that the notions expressed above are a country mile away from ridiculous or insanity or whatever other epithets RJ has been throwing at them to try to make them sound crazy.

They aren't crazy. They are perfectly plausible. Don't listen to him, dear readers. He is not sans agenda.

I think I've made my point on a thread which has drifted off Trevor's original point terribly. I'm going to try to make this my last comment for a week or so because I just can't stand RJ's screaming any longer. It can't be healthy for him nor for us having to read it.

[rjpalmer]

I'm going to try to make this my last comment for a week or so because I just can't stand RJ's screaming any longer. It can't be healthy for him nor for us having to read it.

I'm not screaming in the least, Tom. I'm as a calm as a drowsy kitten.

What sounds to you as 'screaming' is probably just your own brain rattling around when it realizes your theory doesn't "hold up to scrutiny."

And those were Al Bundy's words, not mine. And Bundy doesn't strike me as 'partisan,' so don't blame the messenger.

Let's see if Keith is willing to help you.

All I am doing is asking the same question David Barrett asked back in 2018.

Why did Mike need a blank or partially blank diary?

Why is that so hard for you to explain it? Saying it is a surrogate or a doppelganger doesn't explain why it needed to be blank or partially blank.

According to Jay, and I certainly think he's right from everything I've read, Dodd had no proof anything was stolen. None of the electricians Robert Smith describes in his 2017 book admitted to actually seeing the Diary firsthand, let alone studying it.

With this in mind, I ask--for the final time--as you seem to be distressed---why couldn't Mike have ordered an entirely used diary? Wouldn't that make more sense? Why couldn't he have ordered an old photo album, as any normal person would do (if we pretend his actions make any sense and really happened)? Why couldn't he have ordered an old copy of Gulliver's Travels for Eddie to hand to Dodd?

Those are the questions you need to answer.

Have a good rest, Old Man. A warm water bottle might help, too.

Meanwhile, let's see if Keith is willing to help you out with an explanation, but from his latest email it seems as if he's not as convinced that you are that the Battlecrease provenance is as conclusive as we've been led to believe, and he is still "assessing" Anne Graham's story after all these years.

Let calmness reign over you.

[rjpalmer]

I suppose, on a human level, my own presence here is misguided, and even a little foolish.

Does it really matter than a tiny and diminishing group of people have convinced themselves that the Maybrick Hoax is old and important document?

I don't think so.

There is so much 'dirt' on the diary, so many problems with it, that the public is in no danger of being deluded or deceived. That battle was fought and won 25 years ago. Only a small number of believers or semi-believers remain, and they are (in my opinion) deluding themselves, because on some level, it is emotionally satisfying.

You can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced, so it is futile to try. Team Diary, of course, will have concluded that I am the one who refuses to be convinced. Either way, the only thing really happening now is an endless battle of wills between stubborn people who know they will never convince their opponent, so Tom is correct in suggesting that it is "unhealthy." I'll even go as far as saying that is probably more fitting and reasonable that Tom's ideas should be left unopposed by the larger army of skeptics.

This will be my last barb, but from my point of view, if a person can convince themselves that the handwriting is Maybrick's--despite all evidence to the contrary and the best expert opinion on either side of the Atlantic--or that 'bumbling buffoon' is a reference to Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist--or that 'tin match box empty' is an accident of poetry--or that 'one off instance' is a reference to a horse--or a dozen other absurdities--or that Anne Graham's actions don't raise suspicions---they are going to convince themselves that their logic and instincts are impeccable on every other point, too. In which case anything I say going forward will come across a ragged, dirty diaper on a clothes' line, flapping in the wind.

Often promised, but never achieved, it's a good day to really pull the plug.

[erobitha]

According to Jay, and I certainly think he's right from everything I've read, Dodd had no proof anything was stolen. None of the electricians Robert Smith describes in his 2017 book admitted to actually seeing the Diary firsthand, let alone studying it.

Suspiciously mud-like response there RJ.

Paul Dodd, even now, remains open to evidence it came from under his floorboards. To my knowledge, he thinks it is more unlikely than likely based on his own experience of working on the house, but he admits he cannot 100% rule out the possibility.

Nor has he ever sought to reclaim anything from anyone. I also understand that if he were presented with the diary today and told it was rightfully his, he most likely rather donate it than keep it.

I have the utmost respect for Keith because, as both Ike and I have said all along, Keith is his own man with his own opinions and views, but he is always fastidious.

[erobitha]

I suppose, on a human level, my own presence here is misguided, and even a little foolish.

Does it really matter than a tiny and diminishing group of people have convinced themselves that the Maybrick Hoax is old and important document?

I don't think so.

There is so much 'dirt' on the diary, so many problems with it, that the public is in no danger of being deluded or deceived. That battle was fought and won 25 years ago. Only a small number of believers or semi-believers remain, and they are (in my opinion) deluding themselves, because on some level, it is emotionally satisfying.

You can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced, so it is futile to try. Team Diary, of course, will have concluded that I am the one who refuses to be convinced. Either way, the only thing really happening now is an endless battle of wills between stubborn people who know they will never convince their opponent, so Tom is correct in suggesting that it is "unhealthy." I'll even go as far as saying that is probably more fitting and reasonable that Tom's ideas should be left unopposed by the larger army of skeptics.

This will be my last barb, but from my point of view, if a person can convince themselves that the handwriting is Maybrick's--despite all evidence to the contrary and the best expert opinion on either side of the Atlantic--or that 'bumbling buffoon' is a reference to Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist--or that 'tin match box empty' is an accident of poetry--or that 'one off instance' is a reference to a horse--or a dozen other absurdities--or that Anne Graham's actions don't raise suspicions---they are going to convince themselves that their logic and instincts are impeccable on every other point, too. In which case anything I say going forward will come across a ragged, dirty diaper on a clothes' line, flapping in the wind.

Often promised, but never achieved, it's a good day to really pull the plug.

I'm welling up over here, RJ. Such an outpouring of raw emotion. So strong and brave.

RJ and Orsam keep threatening to walk away from this debate, often citing some bizarre argument that their intellect should not be stooping to such low levels. Yet, they keep coming back. Why is that?

Most people have done exactly what RJ suggests. They do not engage in the debate. They drew their lines in the sand a long time ago. They don't engage.

I will let you into a little secret, readers. Somewhere deep within both RJ and Orsam is a niggling voice, A voice they can't quite kill. They almost beg for us "deluded nutters" to provide that perfect answer, killing it stone dead. But try as we might, we just can't kill the beast.

The voice whispers in the dead of night, waking them from their restless slumber, "But what if?"

That voice is what keeps them coming back to the table. Like so many others, if they truly believed that there could be no truth in Maybrick being JtR in the slightest, they would be having endless nights of glorious sleep. That voice would be no more.