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

[Iconoclast]

I point out the 'blindingly obvious,' Ike, for the simple reason that the Floorboard Fundamentalist have a history of implying that, based on an email received twenty-eight years after-the-fact, Mr. Earl would have lovingly described each and every page to Barrett in exquisite detail worthy of a Russian novelist, when the fact is he gave a general outline of his business policies.

It was in an email, yes. It was a simple question, very direct, and it was answered emphatically with a 'No'. There was no equivocation and - of course - there couldn't be regarding something so utterly fundamental to the survival of his business. I think you and I both know this.

The diary being from 1891 wouldn't bother the jury, I suspect, if Barrett was in the dock. Book covers can be removed or doctored. No matter how much you deny it, what would bother the jury is Earl's original advertisement which shows what Barrett wanted to obtain. What he received is a different question.

You're trying far too hard here, RJ, and far too easily swayed by your own argument - so much so that I will be asking my elder friend from the park if he would say a prayer for me that I never end up in the dock and - if I do - that you are not a member of the jury. The notion that the jury would not be influenced by what Barrett accepted is a strange one - I think an even average lawyer could drill home to them the implications! And let's not talk about covers on diaries when we know that the date 1891 was printed numerous times on every page.

If we turn to Barrett's secret confessional affidavit ...

Sorry, you guys can't keep having it every which way you want. According to Herlock, Barrett's affidavit was the creation of Alan Gray. I hope my dear readers are taking note here, though, as I am the lawyer and they the jury here.

... what he states is:
"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary ..."
Now, you might argue that Mr. Barrett is lying, but the fact is, the red diary IS very small, so it being of 'no use' is entirely plausible. Mike's secret affidavit does have the ring of truth on this score, and it also sounds like a man who hadn't really known what to expect until he tore off the wrapper and realized his own carelessness.

What I would say is that you Diary Debonkers need to get your stories aligned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

the above is Ike's comment and not yours, but from what you've managed to hear, do you recall any mention of the "affair of the red diary" in the Gray/Barrett tapes?

Hi Roger,

I didn't hear any mention of the red diary on any of the tapes I listened to. I did hear the the name 'Outhwaite and Litherland' on the tape said to be dated 8th November 1994 but I'm pretty sure it's been labelled with the wrong date because I heard Gray saying at about 39;58 that he's at Mike Barrett's house on Monday, 7th November 1994 and then later at about 48:15 he states the time and again says the date is 7th November.

[rjpalmer]

As always, Ike, I'm surprised that you are unaware of the important minutia, but I suppose that being so laser-focused on Maybrick's guilt you've never given the Barrett/Graham hypothesis the attention it deserves.

From a timeline created by Shirley Harrison & Keith Skinner in 1999:

"The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in by Michael.

Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence, when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book - £25".

Notice also the reference to the Barretts being broke.

Wasn't your argument that the Barretts had no money motive?

Regards.

[rjpalmer]

Where on earth did you get that little corker from?

A gentleman named Keith Skinner.

[rjpalmer]

I absolutely could not agree with you more, RJ - thank you for reinforcing the blindingly obvious.

I point out the 'blindingly obvious,' Ike, for the simple reason that the Floorboard Fundamentalist have a history of implying that, based on an email received twenty-eight years after-the-fact, Mr. Earl would have lovingly described each and every page to Barrett in exquisite detail worthy of a Russian novelist, when the fact is he gave a general outline of his business policies.

The diary being from 1891 wouldn't bother the jury, I suspect, if Barrett was in the dock. Book covers can be removed or doctored. No matter how much you deny it, what would bother the jury is Earl's original advertisement which shows what Barrett wanted to obtain. What he received is a different question.

If we turn to Barrett's secret confessional affidavit, what he states is:

"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary ..."

Now, you might argue that Mr. Barrett is lying, but the fact is, the red diary IS very small, so it being of 'no use' is entirely plausible. Mike's secret affidavit does have the ring of truth on this score, and it also sounds like a man who hadn't really known what to expect until he tore off the wrapper and realized his own carelessness.

Regards.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock,

the above is Ike's comment and not yours, but from what you've managed to hear, do you recall any mention of the "affair of the red diary" in the Gray/Barrett tapes?

I think I am right in saying that none of the November 4-7 tapes mention a red diary.

Could be wrong.

[Iconoclast]

I agree that it looks more like oil damage than water damage. I have 20+ years of experience as a librarian, mostly in "technical services" which includes caring for damaged books. Water damage tends to wrinkle pages and cover boards, and may lead to mold. The album wasn't in a box that got wet, to judge from the stain evidence. But it could have been subjected to deliberate "spot cleaning" as described by its owner.

I think that we can all accept that the staining is almost certainly not from water ingress and almost certainly from the application of some form of oily substance.

[Iconoclast]

I think it is somewhat interesting that Anne Graham only signed the cheque and Barrett filled out all the other details.

Where on earth did you get that little corker from?

I can't imagine it would have been normal for Anne to give blank, signed cheques to an impetuous alcoholic, but unless Keith Skinner obtained any other cancelled cheques from Anne, it remains speculation.

It's only speculation if you actually believe that Barrett wrote that cheque and Anne signed it.

Did she not like what Mike was doing and wanted plausible deniability by not writing down Earl's name? Or were there other blank cheques cancelled by art shops and auction houses?

So much despairing inference, so little fact.

[Iconoclast]

28 years after a fleeting telephone transaction, Mr. Earl is not going to remember precisely what he told Barrett.

And, indeed, no-one would expect him to but you would expect him to remember a critical element of the sales process such as describing the product in detail so that the sale would stick. It's as fundamental as asking for payment. Earl, as we saw, was adamant: "No", he said, there was no possibility that Barrett could have been unaware that he was being sent a diary for the year 1891.

Would you have operated your business in a more relaxed style, I wonder?

Rationally, the most one could expect him to remember was his general policy and method of operation.

Oh - should have read on - you've answered your own 'question'.

Surely you must concede this point?

I absolutely could not agree with you more, RJ - thank you for reinforcing the blindingly obvious. Earl would never have sold Barrett that 1891 diary without telling him what it was in explicit detail in order to minimise the likelihood of it coming back as a refund request.

[rjpalmer]

Well, that saves me a lot of searching, then, doesn't it? My memory was faulty ("Hold the front page!").

Still, this creates a problem because the wider and quite summary provided by Seth does not appear on any of the November 1994 tapes that I have access to (all the ones every one now has access to) and listened to so far. This makes me think there must be more tapes but for whatever reason they are not yet digitised.

Hi Herlock,

the above is Ike's comment and not yours, but from what you've managed to hear, do you recall any mention of the "affair of the red diary" in the Gray/Barrett tapes?

[Pcdunn]

The blobs are definitely some kind of oil. If you look closely, the outer edge of the blobs are fainter in appearance than the centre, they have a thin outer edge, which is consistent with the way in which oil spreads out as it moves across the paper. A label seems to have been removed from the corner of the cover, is that the blue edge of the label still remaining? The brown mark, showing on the stain where the label has been could be due to a portion of the cover tearing away as the label was removed. This then would stain darker as the paper is now more porous than the rest of the paper lining of the cover.

I agree that it looks more like oil damage than water damage. I have 20+ years of experience as a librarian, mostly in "technical services" which includes caring for damaged books. Water damage tends to wrinkle pages and cover boards, and may lead to mold. The album wasn't in a box that got wet, to judge from the stain evidence. But it could have been subjected to deliberate "spot cleaning" as described by its owner.

[rjpalmer]

I think it is somewhat interesting that Anne Graham only signed the cheque and Barrett filled out all the other details.

I can't imagine it would have been normal for Anne to give blank, signed cheques to an impetuous alcoholic, but unless Keith Skinner obtained any other cancelled cheques from Anne, it remains speculation.

Did she not like what Mike was doing and wanted plausible deniability by not writing down Earl's name?

Or were there other blank cheques cancelled by art shops and auction houses?

[rjpalmer]

In 2020, Martin Earl via email was asked, "...

28 years after a fleeting telephone transaction, Mr. Earl is not going to remember precisely what he told Barrett.

Rationally, the most one could expect him to remember was his general policy and method of operation.

Surely you must concede this point?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In fairness, he repeated the false claim that “he [Barrett] was told, "... dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page" which is not dissimilar.“

To be honest, Kattrup, I thought those words were in the description that Martin Earl read to Mike Barrett, at least according to Caz's #5701 in the "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" thread, posted on August 4, 2020, I thought she was saying that Earl had provided to her the text of the description of the diary he got from his supplier which he would have read out to Barrett in March 1992.

Having done a search on Casebook, I can see that you are absolutely correct. On 24 June 2020, in #6295 of the same thread, Caz said that this was indeed Keith Skinner's own description of the diary, not Martin Earl's.

Thanks for pointing this out. It means we really don't know what Barrett was told about the 1891 diary in March 1992, and can only speculate as to the words used. All very interesting.

[Kattrup]

Yes, for clarity, #5701 in the Incontrovertible thread was describing the 1891 diary, and that description was quite likely to have been Keith Skinner's (but that doesn't actually matter).

If we are permitting Barrett to mishear or ignore what he heard regarding the 1891 date appearing numerous times on every page then we can permit him any number of conveniences in order to shoehorn him into the frame as a hoaxer, I'd say. I understand why people would grant him those errors of attention if it helped to pursue the fiction being weaved around the Barretts.

That said, we should work with the evidence we have. In 2020, Martin Earl via email was asked, "... is it possible that he was entirely unaware that he was being sent a diary for the year 1891until he actually saw it for himself?" to which Earl replied with a very simple, "No'.

We cannot embellish this unless we have good reason to do so: Earl was clear that he was always clear about the items before the purchaser received them.

I think that needs to put these "falling on deaf ears" theories aside until Herlock or Kattrup or anyone else can show us that Earl did not mention the date to Barrett. It is clear that Earl was clear what the diary was and we should not create branches of circumstances which no-one has actually seen grow.

No one is disputing that Barrett knew the diary was from 1891. And we’re not “permitting” Barrett to mishear or ignore or anything.

I’m just pointing out that the claim that he was told that 1891 appeared numerous times, as you’ve just repeated again, is false.

The only one creating false branches of circumstances is you, by repeating the false argument that Barrett would have been aware in advance that the diary had 1891 on every page.
Martin Earl would probably have advised Barrett that no 1880-1890 diary was forthcoming, however he did find one completely unused from 1891, so-and-so big, did Barrett want that instead? And Barrett, pressed for time and living in a pre-internet world, had little choice but to accept and hope it might be used.