The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[caz]

Hi Ike,

let me just say this, because I was planning on saying it before I decided to take my bat and mitt and go home. It has to do with blank diaries.

A lady friend of mine is selling her house to move into smaller quarters, so she's giving away many of her unwanted possessions.

Last week she handed me a completely blank book (with a strap around it) and asked, "can you use this diary?"

Ah hah!

I, of course, took the opportunity to ask her why she was calling it a diary. She gave me the look.

Now, let me be clear: inside the diary she handed me there is a small space at the top of each page to write down a date. But there are no printed dates. Just the single word "date: "

I asked her if she didn't think a true Bonafide diary shouldn't have dates printed on each page?

She gave me the look again.

She said no--that's a lousy sort of diary. That's more of a memo book, she said, or a daily planner. It's not a diary.

Why? I asked.

"Because when you keep a diary some days you have nothing to say. Other days something wonderful or horrible happened and you might want to write four or five pages so having the constraint of printed dates makes for a terrible diary. You might also get busy and not write in your diary for two weeks, in which case you've wasted paper. No, a good diary should be blank--no printed dates."

If you want to argue with her, Ike, drop me a PM and I'll hook you up, but I'll warn you now that you'll never convince her.

RP

So Mike didn't think to ask for a diary with no printed dates, or didn't think to ask if the one located for 1891 had printed dates, or was a memo book, daily planner or appointments diary? He merely assumed it would be the kind of personal diary that he either needed pretty soon, or already had, and ended up taking to London?

And Anne trusted Mike to know what the hell he was doing, when trying to obtain something suitable for Maybrick's undated thoughts on certain nights during 1888 and 1889?

Really?

Is that all the Barrett Hoax believers have got?

[caz]

I've given you two totally rational explanations but you pretend they are batshit crazy so you can keep up the pretense that the diary is something that it isn't.

1. She helped Mike because everyone misjudged her (including me on the 'outside') and she was a lot more conniving and desperate in 1992 than anyone imagined. According to Martin Fido, 'Bonsey,' the investigating officer from Scotland Yard, was VERY suspicious of Anne's behavior.

2. She helped Mike to keep peace in the house, believing the whole thing would amount to nothing once Barrett went to London. 'Doreen would just send Mike packing.'

I lean towards the latter--referencing Anne's own words--but if I'm wrong, I'd only opt for #1.

The funny thing is, you have no problem whatsoever with suggesting that Anne committed the equally crazy scheme of helping Mike market stolen goods, nor in admitting (as gently as you can) that Anne spent years bullshitting Keith and Shirley and Feldman with a long string of porkies--evidently because Feldy had offered her financial riches--- but the same deceitful person helping Mike create a hoax?

No. That's utterly ridiculous!

Can't you see how utterly unconvincing and contradictory this ethical juggling act appears to someone on the 'outside'?

But from what I can gather, we are supposed to trust your judgment about Anne because you met her once or twice and could see into her soul?

Is that what you're telling me?

If so, I'm not buying it.

Blimey, "calm down, calm down".

I don't believe Anne 'helped' Mike to create a hoax. It's not a crime to be sceptical, or Palmer would be doing time.

I don't believe Anne 'helped' Mike to market what she knew to be faked or stolen goods. She didn't know where the diary came from - unless Palmer wants to claim Mike showed her his lucky 'ticket/receipt/proof of purchase' or what have you.

I believe Anne only 'helped' Mike when she had exhausted her efforts to dissuade him from going public with a diary he got from God knows where, and sufficient time had passed to diminish her fears that anyone would miss it from their private collection of serial killer diaries.

She then put on her 'professional' bonnet and helped Mike to transcribe the diary onto the word processor, because the handwriting does not lend itself to an easy read in places. It would have saved her the bother, if it had been her own handwriting, to make it all perfectly legible in the first place, unless she couldn't multi-task and disguising it over 63 pages was hard enough when she only had one stab at it.

Who has been asked to 'trust' my beliefs about Anne just because I have met her - and found her a bit defensive if anyone wants to know?

Where have I claimed the ability to see into her soul or anyone else's?

[rjpalmer]

We never get a rational explanation for such totally irrational behaviour on Anne's part.

Oh, and one final thing. Why would anyone expect that the behavior of someone married to a raging alcoholic to be 'totally rational'?

Everyone reacts differently, or invents different strategies, but I knew of one enabler who would physically fight her alcoholic husband on the kitchen floor one moment and drive fifteen miles into town to buy him a bottle of whiskey the next, or even, on occasion, go out drinking with him when two weeks earlier she had pleaded him to go into rehab.

Is that rational? And this was an intelligent and well-educated person.

There's a quote in either Inside Story or Shirley's last edition (I forget which) where Anne admonishes her interviewers, telling them they had no idea of the atmosphere inside the Goldie Street house. That she is not the same person now that she was then.

Yet now--years later--the same people can tell us with absolute conviction what Anne would and would not have done in 1991-1992. Their thumb is firmly on her pulse--or at least they've convinced themselves that it is.

If, in a particularly bad time in her life, Anne created or helped create the diary, I think the world would forgive her. But she should find the courage to set the record straight.

I never met the woman, but from what I've read she comes across as quite complicated and enigmatic. Not a two-dimensional easy-to-predict person at all. Not a cartoon character. Her own behavior shows that she wasn't always behaving rationally. How can anyone keep a straight face and argue otherwise?

[caz]

Didn't you also once say a very long time ago that the handwriting opinion couldn't be taken as conclusive proof that the diary wasn't written by Maybrick?

I could have done, I don't recall. I know I suggested at some point that the diary we have, while not penned by Maybrick, could have been copied or adapted by someone from an original document - which is essentially what people have claimed about the Barretts, that Anne would have been copying from the original on the word processor, whether it was all her own work, all Mike's work or a joint effort.

I trust it won't become a capital offence to carry two or more ideas in one's head at the same or different times, or I'll be for it.

But who mentioned 'conclusive proof'? It was you, not me. When someone reaches a conclusion, and says they won't be changing what is ultimately a matter of opinion anytime soon, the clues are there that they are not talking about 'conclusive proof'.

This pedant is now officially revolting.

[caz]

A little tip for you Caz. Whenever anyone moans that a quote has been taken out of context but then doesn't go on to provide the missing context, you know they are full of it.

There is no context to those quotes attributed to Keith Skinner that changes their meaning, and what you've failed to acknowledge is that in my post to Erobtiha I gave the page reference to where they can be found in Harrison's 2003 book, so anyone, including you, could have looked it up themselves.

But if you really want the entire thing, here it is within a section headed "ANNE'S STORY" regarding the recorded message she had left on 31st July 1994 in which she broke her stunning yarn about the diary having been in her family for many years having not said a single word about this to any of the researchers before that day.

"Anne has explained her actions now many times. She wrote to me with obvious distress in July 1997 saying that from the time the contracts were signed our contract had always been with Michael So far as she was concerned we were just 'the people in London'. She certainly didn't think of us as friends or even colleagues at that stage. Her life was in turmoil; as a Catholic the concept of divorce as horrific and she could not share her problems with anyone, certainly not with us.

"I also worried that the research waters had been muddied, but I was extremely relieved to learn later how closely Keith had been involved with the unravelling of the plot because I trust his integrity implicitly. Keith has said to be on many occasions, "I was involved from the very first and I was present at most of the meetings of Paul and Billy. If the story had been forced I would have detected it by now. If I had detected it I would have exposed it.

'Those who believe Anne is lying, or that she has been bought by Paul must include me in the plot as well," he claims. In his inimitable, pernickety way he has, at times, tested Anne's patience with his minute cross-examination of every second of the journey that led her to make the confession. Keith's honesty and fervour is very persuasive. Anne's defection and seeming obliviousness to her professional and personal responsibility to us and indeed to the Devereux family distressed me, but on balance I see now how it could have happened."

Is that enough for you or do you want me to reproduce the entire book?

No, that's fine. I'm also thinking of the other readers, who may not have 'the entire book' to hand, to check exactly what Shirley wrote about her own understanding of Keith's position. I do have Shirley's 1998 edition, and Keith Skinner also kindly transcribed the passage in question for me, which you have now done, so I'm much obliged to you both.

Shirley writes that Keith had 'said' to her 'on many occasions' the words she attributes to him, and which you have queried, so that in itself should tell you that he was not likely to have used those exact same words on each one of those occasions, unless he wrote them down beforehand, in which case he need only have said it to her the once, or given her a copy if he was happy for her to quote him verbatim for future editions of her book.

A 'plot' is generally defined as a secret plan by two or more people. Keith is referring here to a plot by Anne and Paul Feldman to invent a new provenance for the diary. He remembers very clearly the circumstances when he believed Anne's story, which he says has now been 'seriously challenged' by the Battlecrease circumstantial evidence, but not to the point of disproving it. He points out that only Anne, a living witness, can answer this. He firmly rejects the theory that Mike and Anne wrote the diary. When Keith explained his position to Shirley, he tells me it was 'against a background of gossip and innuendo suggesting that Anne had been bought by Paul Feldman'. As Keith was working very closely with both of them, he just could not see how this was the case. He says: 'If I discovered there was collusion between them then I would have exposed it and walked from the project.' He recalls being frequently in Feldman's office at all times, day and night, when Feldman phoned Anne, or Anne phoned Feldman, who put the loudspeaker on so Keith could hear the conversation, which was about the ongoing research into Anne's family. There was nothing to alert Anne to the fact that Keith was listening in and to be guarded in what she said. Keith says it was the fact that Feldman genuinely believed in the authenticity of the diary and was positive it had come through Anne's family, which convinced him of both their sincerity at the time. He could not understand Feldman throwing more and more money into research to try and prove a story which he and Anne, plus her father, had invented together.

If I may take the words out of context for a moment, to produce: 'Those who believe Anne is lying... must include me in the plot as well', this appears to imply that if Anne was lying, Keith must have known it at the time. But all it really means is that Keith believed Anne because he also believed he'd have known it if she was lying. But he didn't know any such thing then, and still doesn't know it for a fact today. If both those beliefs have since been put to the test, it's hardly the end of the world. People believe things all the time, which don't always turn out to be true. People also believe in their own ability to distinguish truth from lies, as we see in action on a daily basis in this place, and none of us can be right all the time. It doesn't make any of us bad people when we get it wrong, as long as we haven't deliberately manipulated, mangled or ignored the known facts, evidence and context on the way there. In the Scottish play, King Duncan transferred his absolute trust from one traitor to another, with fatal consequences. If an army of doubters had told him the man and his fiend-like wife were plotting to murder him while under their roof, he might have said, rather dramatically, in his best Victor Meldrew voice: "I don't believe it! Those who do believe it must count me in on this dastardly plot!" In his case, it would be his own burial plot. In Keith's case, his original belief in Anne's story would merely need replacing with proof positive, if it exists, that she was lying - and to Feldman, not with him.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, in the very general sense, an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 hoaxed record of someone's thoughts if it turned out to have the appropriate characteristics (the obvious one being that it wasn't emblazoned with '1891' on every page); but - no - in the very specific case of what you claim Barrett was seeking to do with the tiny 1891 diary, it is utterly implausible that he could have thought it was an appropriate vehicle.

Hi Ike,

let me just say this, because I was planning on saying it before I decided to take my bat and mitt and go home. It has to do with blank diaries.

A lady friend of mine is selling her house to move into smaller quarters, so she's giving away many of her unwanted possessions.

Last week she handed me a completely blank book (with a strap around it) and asked, "can you use this diary?"

Ah hah!

I, of course, took the opportunity to ask her why she was calling it a diary. She gave me the look.

Now, let me be clear: inside the diary she handed me there is a small space at the top of each page to write down a date. But there are no printed dates. Just the single word "date: "

I asked her if she didn't think a true Bonafide diary shouldn't have dates printed on each page?

She gave me the look again.

She said no--that's a lousy sort of diary. That's more of a memo book, she said, or a daily planner. It's not a diary.

Why? I asked.

"Because when you keep a diary some days you have nothing to say. Other days something wonderful or horrible happened and you might want to write four or five pages so having the constraint of printed dates makes for a terrible diary. You might also get busy and not write in your diary for two weeks, in which case you've wasted paper. No, a good diary should be blank--no printed dates."

If you want to argue with her, Ike, drop me a PM and I'll hook you up, but I'll warn you now that you'll never convince her.

RP

[rjpalmer]

I have not ignored the contradictions in her story, but I'm more inclined to believe - from what we know about Mike's character - that she would never have 'collaborated' with her loose cannon of a husband on a literary hoax, and if she was hoping to 'manipulate' him in March 1992, the evidence indicates it was to persuade him not to go public with the diary [which she obviously failed to do], which makes little sense if she had been collaborating with him over the previous months if not years to write the story for it, before doing the handwriting herself, knowing full well that Mike would be incapable and she would be the fall girl if it went tits up or - heaven forbid - the marriage broke down and Mike decided to "split" on his estranged soul mate.

Years ago, Paul Begg once suggested, how seriously I do not know, that Anne Graham and Tony Devereux wrote the diary as a sort of 'prank' to occupy Mike's time and to keep him out of the pub. It all went pear-shaped when Barrett took the hoax to London. I'm not particularly convinced---it doesn't explain the red diary nor Mike's other feats of inside knowledge---but Alan Gray seems to have come to exactly the same conclusion.

Do you hold Paul's idea in the same contempt that you hold every other suggestion that is not your own? Why must every idea be a vicious fight to the death that drips with hostility? Shouldn't we simply be after the truth?

Martin Fido's theory was really only a variation on Paul's. Anne wrote the diary as a piece of fiction, and then--unawares--Mike took it off the word processor and created the hoax which he then marketed in London. Martin assumed the handwriting was Barrett's, but it could just as easily have been "A. N. Other's."

In both scenarios Anne is more or less an innocent person---an unwitting victim of Barrett's foolishness and recklessness.

So you see---I'm not the only person that thinks that a generally good person like Anne supposedly is could have written the diary. I'm just the only one who gets harangued for it. I don't recall you attacking Paul or Martin when they made a similar suggestion.

But I think I've seen enough to last me a good long while. The 'debate' no longer serves any useful purpose. Just people talking over each other and trying to score cheap 'points' on an internet forum. No real effort to get at the truth--just to defend their own long held beliefs.

[rjpalmer]

We never get a rational explanation for such totally irrational behaviour on Anne's part.

I've given you two totally rational explanations but you pretend they are batshit crazy so you can keep up the pretense that the diary is something that it isn't.

1. She helped Mike because everyone misjudged her (including me on the 'outside') and she was a lot more conniving and desperate in 1992 than anyone imagined. According to Martin Fido, 'Bonsey,' the investigating officer from Scotland Yard, was VERY suspicious of Anne's behavior.

2. She helped Mike to keep peace in the house, believing the whole thing would amount to nothing once Barrett went to London. 'Doreen would just send Mike packing.'

I lean towards the latter--referencing Anne's own words--but if I'm wrong, I'd only opt for #1.

The funny thing is, you have no problem whatsoever with suggesting that Anne committed the equally crazy scheme of helping Mike market stolen goods, nor in admitting (as gently as you can) that Anne spent years bullshitting Keith and Shirley and Feldman with a long string of porkies--evidently because Feldy had offered her financial riches--- but the same deceitful person helping Mike create a hoax?

No. That's utterly ridiculous!

Can't you see how utterly unconvincing and contradictory this ethical juggling act appears to someone on the 'outside'?

But from what I can gather, we are supposed to trust your judgment about Anne because you met her once or twice and could see into her soul?

Is that what you're telling me?

If so, I'm not buying it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, I concluded a very long time ago that the diary wasn't handwritten by Maybrick on the handwriting alone. It's interesting to see you say that this is ultimately a matter of opinion and not something you agree with, but I won't be changing it anytime soon.

Didn't you also once say a very long time ago that the handwriting opinion couldn't be taken as conclusive proof that the diary wasn't written by Maybrick?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be absolutely clear, I don't think there is anything that I can think of off the top of my head that precludes the possibility that the Barretts produced the Maybrick scrapbook; but let me be also very clear that I know that there is absolutely no categorical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did and I believe there are very good reasons for believing that they did not.

Mike's attempt to order an 1889 or 1890 diary coupled with his acceptance of an 1891 diary is the deal-breaker for the one piece of evidence your Love Dad has claimed is his reason for thinking that they did: it is borderline impossible that Mike could have thought a small 1891 diary (however blank he might have thought it was) could be a suitable vehicle for a hoaxed 1888 record of James Maybrick's thoughts and no amount of twisting and turning by you or anyone else can make it any less implausible.

Yes, in the very general sense, an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 hoaxed record of someone's thoughts if it turned out to have the appropriate characteristics (the obvious one being that it wasn't emblazoned with '1891' on every page); but - no - in the very specific case of what you claim Barrett was seeking to do with the tiny 1891 diary, it is utterly implausible that he could have thought it was an appropriate vehicle.

Off the top of your head???? How long have you had to think about it? We spoke about this many weeks ago.

As for the red diary, please explain clearly how what you refer to as "the very general sense" differs from "the very specific case" in circumstances where there is no evidence in the specific case as to how the seller described the 1891 diary to Martin Earl, no evidence as to how Martin Earl described it to Michael Barret and no evidence what Michael Barrett believed a Victorian diary looked like when he spoke to Earl other than that "the diary of Jack the Ripper" he mentioned to Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 turned out not to have any printed dates on it.

[caz]

So which was it? The idea of their collaboration was "absolute rubbish" or she planned on manipulating Barrett into a writing a story together?

Oh, I thought Palmer was the one with all the answers about how Anne's mind worked. Silly me.

I have not ignored the contradictions in her story, but I'm more inclined to believe - from what we know about Mike's character - that she would never have 'collaborated' with her loose cannon of a husband on a literary hoax, and if she was hoping to 'manipulate' him in March 1992, the evidence indicates it was to persuade him not to go public with the diary [which she obviously failed to do], which makes little sense if she had been collaborating with him over the previous months if not years to write the story for it, before doing the handwriting herself, knowing full well that Mike would be incapable and she would be the fall girl if it went tits up or - heaven forbid - the marriage broke down and Mike decided to "split" on his estranged soul mate.

We never get a rational explanation for such totally irrational behaviour on Anne's part. We just have to suck it up and accept that she would have put in all the hard yards, while supposedly manipulating Mike into thinking it was his own idea and his own work, but got cold feet when she finally saw what they'd gone and done or, more accurately, what she'd been manipulated into doing. Perhaps Mike held her feet to the fire and got them warm again, so she would go along with his wishes after all, and against her own - so much for her ability to manipulate him!

Make it make sense!

[caz]

Basing a conclusion on the handwriting alone, which is ultimately a matter of opinion, is not something I agree with, so there's another area of disagreement.

Yeah, I concluded a very long time ago that the diary wasn't handwritten by Maybrick on the handwriting alone. It's interesting to see you say that this is ultimately a matter of opinion and not something you agree with, but I won't be changing it anytime soon.

[Iconoclast]

Even Ike now admits that there's no reason that the Barretts couldn't have produced the diary.

To be absolutely clear, I don't think there is anything that I can think of off the top of my head that precludes the possibility that the Barretts produced the Maybrick scrapbook; but let me be also very clear that I know that there is absolutely no categorical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did and I believe there are very good reasons for believing that they did not.

Mike's attempt to order an 1889 or 1890 diary coupled with his acceptance of an 1891 diary is the deal-breaker for the one piece of evidence your Love Dad has claimed is his reason for thinking that they did: it is borderline impossible that Mike could have thought a small 1891 diary (however blank he might have thought it was) could be a suitable vehicle for a hoaxed 1888 record of James Maybrick's thoughts and no amount of twisting and turning by you or anyone else can make it any less implausible.

Yes, in the very general sense, an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 hoaxed record of someone's thoughts if it turned out to have the appropriate characteristics (the obvious one being that it wasn't emblazoned with '1891' on every page); but - no - in the very specific case of what you claim Barrett was seeking to do with the tiny 1891 diary, it is utterly implausible that he could have thought it was an appropriate vehicle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ve never won an argument against her certainty and in favour of your uncertainty.

I’m sure of it. But I’m not sure how you can be sure of the opposite concerning your uncertainty.

But I agree there can be no certainty for or against with the handwriting. So authenticity is still the main issue.

Of course I won the argument against her certainty. Even Ike now admits that there's no reason that the Barretts couldn't have produced the diary. Caz certainly hasn't been able to produce one. Nor has she been able to produce a plausible reason as to why Barrett was seeking a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992.

I'm not uncertain of the inauthenticity of the diary which has been fully proven. The handwriting is one element, the multiple mistakes in the diary are another, the ink solubility test result is yet another, but the absolute clincher is the use by the forger of the modern expression "a one off instance" which is known not to have existed in 1888.

[Lombro2]

You’ve never won an argument against her certainty and in favour of your uncertainty.

I’m sure of it. But I’m not sure how you can be sure of the opposite concerning your uncertainty.

But I agree there can be no certainty for or against with the handwriting. So authenticity is still the main issue.