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

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Herlock

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

[Lombro2]

Yaada yaada yaada nada.

We don’t know how the red diary was described but Mike had to keep it and not return it because it was sufficiently described although we don’t know how it was described but it was described sufficiently to confuse Mike but not too sufficiently as Ike would say because not even Mike can be that confused.

[John Wheat]

Oh I love this bit:

"I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one)"

Ike, your gaslighting skills are beyond compare. I can only admire them; it’s a wonder Scott hasn’t pointed them out. In fact, I admire them so much that I'd love to share them with your "dear readers".

This is how the debate between us started on 2nd July (and forgive me for referring to myself in the third person):

Herlock, #974

"You're going to have to explain to me Ike, in simple words I can understand, why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for a fake 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #976

"Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?"

Herlock, #979

"You're missing the bit which explains why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for an 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #980

"Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be."

At the start of this month, therefore, you were telling me that Barrett "couldn't possibly have meant to use" an 1891 diary for a fake 1888/89 diary.

Today, however, an 1891 diary: "could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary...'"

Do you see the difference between "couldn't possibly be used" and "could be used"?

If you said, "they are the complete opposite, Herlock", you win the prize.

But, apparently, so you tell us, you "keep saying" that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary.

I could continue with multiple quotes as our discussion progressed in which you continued to deny point blank that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary and in which you referred to an 1891 diary as "an impossible diary" with 1891 being "an impossible" year but it would just be tedious and I imagine there's only so much humiliation one person can take.

Give it up Ike, your desperate attempts to spin your embarrassment into some kind of victory are about as genuine as the diary….and we all know that that’s a proven forgery.

Hi Herlock

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for the twenty minutes, RJ, and I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the waste of time this entire exercise has become but I am determined to not let Sholmes off the hook. He had a logic fail and wasn't man (or woman) enough to admit it. Now, you and I as grown adults would have given ourselves a shak [sic] (as they say in the beautiful city of Aberdeen) and admitted that we'd had a moment of brain fog and gone away with our tails between our legs for a post or two then come back cutting and thrusting like two brave musketeers of yore. But not Sholmes - he absolutely cannot be seen to be wrong and it seems to stem from some psychological weakness on his part in which he associates being wrong with being stupid.

Actually, I think I will just give it up because he's shown himself to be unable to be wrong and - if you're unable to be wrong - you can't expect people to have a sensible argument about anything with you.

None of it has altered the fact that Michael Barrett (in my world) ordered a diary from potentially 1889 or 1890 and eventually accepted one from 1891 and he didn't blink the eye the rest of us undoubtedly would have had to blink if we were planning to use an 1891 diary for an 1888 series of murders; or Anne Barrett (in your and Sholmes' world) as Mike said so in Alan Gray's January 5, 1995, affidavit, and who am I to sit here questioning the veracity of such a tight legal document?

I've been off the caffeine addiction for some years now, RJ. I drink Rooibos decaffeinated tea these days but Mrs I and I do have a cafetière of filter coffee most mornings. By evening, I'm just about back down from the ceiling. That woman uses tablespoons 'cos she thinks the smaller ones are just for tea.

"I am determined to not let Sholmes off the hook. He had a logic fail and wasn't man (or woman) enough to admit it."

Oh please don't let me off the hook, Ike. I always do so enjoy it when you tie yourself up in knots based on your unfathomable misunderstandings.

Do keep it coming but, hey, perhaps you could try adding (a) some logic (b) some facts (c) some reality and (d) some sanity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Michael Banks may actually be a bit somewhat disingenuous, what do you think, dear readers? He just keeps citing the bits of posts he likes and ignores the bits he doesn't like. For example, I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one) but that no-one in their right mind who has that aim (to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts) would blindly buy something that had been described as an '1891 diary' without asking the blindingly obvious clarification question around whether the document he was being offered had '1891' emblazoned all over it as the 1891 diary in question did.

That's actually primarily all we're debating here, dear readers (we've just got into an endless mind loop because Banks won't admit he was caught with his pants down so we have to be distracted for a while longer yet, it seems). We're not actually debating what Michael Barrett thought a 'diary' might look like (that's just Sholmes' distraction tactic) - what we're debating is whether even he (Barrett) would be stupid enough to agree to accept such a document without first checking on its suitability for what Sholmes thinks was its purpose. In my book, therefore, this shows that Barrett had some other purpose for the 1891 diary he didn't ask detailed questions about. It's obvious, but it shatters the hoax theory into a million pieces (and this is all ignoring for now the fact that Barrett claimed that it was his wife Anne who sought out and ordered the 1891 diary - a claim which he made in his otherwise impeccably uncorrupted affidavit of January 5, 1995, you know, the one written by Alan Gray in much the way all of Mike's hard-hitting trash mag 'articles' were written by Anne according to Anne [see SocPill2 one day]).

But this is all distraction tactics, dear readers, because he just doesn't want to have to say, "Yes, you caught me with my pants down, Ike, you got me there - I got it wrong about Barrett describing the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' to Doreen Montgomery because - of course - in my world he didn't actually acquire it until March 31, 1992". No amount of bluff and bluster is going to alter the fact that he was caught with his pants down and the fact that he can't just say so should be a warning to you regarding how far you get into bed with his deeply flawed line of reasoning.

Oh I love this bit:

"I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one)"

Ike, your gaslighting skills are beyond compare. I can only admire them; it’s a wonder Scott hasn’t pointed them out. In fact, I admire them so much that I'd love to share them with your "dear readers".

This is how the debate between us started on 2nd July (and forgive me for referring to myself in the third person):

Herlock, #974

"You're going to have to explain to me Ike, in simple words I can understand, why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for a fake 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #976

"Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?"

Herlock, #979

"You're missing the bit which explains why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for an 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #980

"Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be."

At the start of this month, therefore, you were telling me that Barrett "couldn't possibly have meant to use" an 1891 diary for a fake 1888/89 diary.

Today, however, an 1891 diary: "could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary...'"

Do you see the difference between "couldn't possibly be used" and "could be used"?

If you said, "they are the complete opposite, Herlock", you win the prize.

But, apparently, so you tell us, you "keep saying" that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary.

I could continue with multiple quotes as our discussion progressed in which you continued to deny point blank that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary and in which you referred to an 1891 diary as "an impossible diary" with 1891 being "an impossible" year but it would just be tedious and I imagine there's only so much humiliation one person can take.

Give it up Ike, your desperate attempts to spin your embarrassment into some kind of victory are about as genuine as the diary….and we all know that that’s a proven forgery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

May as well get ahead of this one, dear readers: remember, we are talking about Herlock's belief that Mike Barrett purchased the Maybrick scrapbook on March 31. We are NOT talking about the overwhelming evidence that he received (or first saw it) on March 9. Remember, my dear readers, a really simple fact of life which some people (well, one person, on his own, out in the wilderness) around here seem incapable of grasping - no argument on the planet can ever explain why someone was describing a 'diary' on March 9 when he didn't (apparently) purchase it until 22 days later on March 31. It can't be backward-engineered. A mistake is a mistake and no amount of wailing and bleating from Sholmes is going to change the fact his trousers were right down around his ankles (and, technically, will be for as long as he seeks to keep up this pathetic re-engineered display of tantrum and tale-telling).



See what he's done here, dear readers? He's got confused and thinks we are discussing the Battlecrease provenance when - in reality - we are discussing the fact that he thinks Mike Barrett called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' because he had it in his hands when he rang Doreen Montgomery on March 9 (remember, dear readers, he said that calling it a 'diary' was proof that he thought a book with no dates in was still a 'diary' which is true but one made out of thin air because he hasn't yet bought it is hardly a 'diary' yet now is it?).



With a scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.



On March 9, 1992, before he had purchased the Maybrick scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.



And which indeed didn't either on March 9, 1992, when - according to Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes, remember, dear readers - he had no more than a telephone and thin air in his hands.



A figurative piece of marketing which - actually - publisher Robert Smith came up with - well, he would, wouldn't he? (Tills ringing and who can blame him?)



Proving that he called thin air a 'diary' on March 9, 1992, and took a scrapbook to Doreen on April 13, 1992, proving further that - yes - anything can retrospectively function as a diary. What's your point caller? (His point, dear readers, is to desperately try to get his trousers back up but he's been caught with them down and he just can't bring himself to admit it which should make us all very wary indeed of trusting his so-called 'logic' and his truly embarrassing Lord Orsam impersonation.)



I don't think any of us are in any doubt, dear readers, that almost anything can function as a 'diary' - it's what we call something that (often inadvertently) ends up functioning as what we all know we mean when we hear the word 'diary'.


.

Confidentially, Ike, I suspect your "dear readers" are as confused as I am about your level of comprehension skills.

As far as I can make out, you seem to think I've made some kind of mistake in referring to the solid evidence regarding Mike's belief about Victorian diaries.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I've told you I was talking about his state of mind when he walked into Doreen's office on 13th April 1992 holding what already he'd promised her was Jack the Ripper's diary. It doesn't even seem to matter that I quoted from my original post when I made this clear. I can't seem to shake from your head the strange and certainly false belief that I was thinking he'd seen the diary on 9th March.

If you think I ever said that here’s a challenge for you, please do find one quote of mine where I did. You won't be able to of course because I never have.

But if you want to play this silly game I'm happy to turn it around.

You must think that when Mike saw the "scrapbook" on 9th March after Eddie Lyons gave it to him, he regarded it as a Victorian diary even though not a single printed date is to be seen throughout the scrapbook nor any identifying year on the cover. Yet he told Doreen that he was in possession of "Jack the Ripper's diary".

Now, Ike, under your own theory, please explain how Mike could have thought he was holding a "diary" if, as you claim, he would have believed (wrongly) that all Victorian diaries had printed dates on all their pages.

Can you do it? I really look forward to reading your answer, Ike, but fear there will be none, just the usual uncontrolled verbiage.

[Iconoclast]

Seriously, Ike, I’ve wasted twenty minutes that I can never recover and all I can fathom is that you’re off in your head somewhere and believe you’ve proven some incomprehensible semantic quibble.

That, and the fact that you spend a lot of time thinking about men with trousers around their ankles and what the world would be like if your auntie had bollocks.

Are you off the caffeine?

Apologies for the twenty minutes, RJ, and I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the waste of time this entire exercise has become but I am determined to not let Sholmes off the hook. He had a logic fail and wasn't man (or woman) enough to admit it. Now, you and I as grown adults would have given ourselves a shak [sic] (as they say in the beautiful city of Aberdeen) and admitted that we'd had a moment of brain fog and gone away with our tails between our legs for a post or two then come back cutting and thrusting like two brave musketeers of yore. But not Sholmes - he absolutely cannot be seen to be wrong and it seems to stem from some psychological weakness on his part in which he associates being wrong with being stupid.

Actually, I think I will just give it up because he's shown himself to be unable to be wrong and - if you're unable to be wrong - you can't expect people to have a sensible argument about anything with you.

None of it has altered the fact that Michael Barrett (in my world) ordered a diary from potentially 1889 or 1890 and eventually accepted one from 1891 and he didn't blink the eye the rest of us undoubtedly would have had to blink if we were planning to use an 1891 diary for an 1888 series of murders; or Anne Barrett (in your and Sholmes' world) as Mike said so in Alan Gray's January 5, 1995, affidavit, and who am I to sit here questioning the veracity of such a tight legal document?

I've been off the caffeine addiction for some years now, RJ. I drink Rooibos decaffeinated tea these days but Mrs I and I do have a cafetière of filter coffee most mornings. By evening, I'm just about back down from the ceiling. That woman uses tablespoons 'cos she thinks the smaller ones are just for tea.

[rjpalmer]

Seriously, Ike, I’ve wasted twenty minutes that I can never recover and all I can fathom is that you’re off in your head somewhere and believe you’ve proven some incomprehensible semantic quibble.

That, and the fact that you spend a lot of time thinking about men with trousers around their ankles and what the world would be like if your auntie had bollocks.

Are you off the caffeine?

[Lombro2]

Now I know they don’t understand “plausible deniability” because they’re denying the Barrett Hoax Hoax but they have nothing plausible to deny it.

[Iconoclast]

I probably would have saved myself a lot of time if I'd just posted this again ...

[Iconoclast]

Out of all your responses, this one seems to exhibit your biggest comprehension failure.

May as well get ahead of this one, dear readers: remember, we are talking about Herlock's belief that Mike Barrett purchased the Maybrick scrapbook on March 31. We are NOT talking about the overwhelming evidence that he received (or first saw it) on March 9. Remember, my dear readers, a really simple fact of life which some people (well, one person, on his own, out in the wilderness) around here seem incapable of grasping - no argument on the planet can ever explain why someone was describing a 'diary' on March 9 when he didn't (apparently) purchase it until 22 days later on March 31. It can't be backward-engineered. A mistake is a mistake and no amount of wailing and bleating from Sholmes is going to change the fact his trousers were right down around his ankles (and, technically, will be for as long as he seeks to keep up this pathetic re-engineered display of tantrum and tale-telling).

"He didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession (according to you) on March 9 so when he told Doreen Montgomery he had the diary of Jack the Spratt McVitiie, he couldn't possibly be referring to the one he took to London on April 13."

this demonstrates a complete failure of logic (a) because it's simply not true, considering that Eddie Lyons might have shown it to him in the pub but he might not yet have bought it (which is one of the theories which has been bandied about), and (b) because if what you intended to say was that he didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession on March 9, and hadn't seen it, this means that the entire Battlecrease theory is false, leaving a Barrett forgery as the only option, so that we don't even need to consider what Mike thought about Victorian diaries.

See what he's done here, dear readers? He's got confused and thinks we are discussing the Battlecrease provenance when - in reality - we are discussing the fact that he thinks Mike Barrett called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' because he had it in his hands when he rang Doreen Montgomery on March 9 (remember, dear readers, he said that calling it a 'diary' was proof that he thought a book with no dates in was still a 'diary' which is true but one made out of thin air because he hasn't yet bought it is hardly a 'diary' yet now is it?).

I believe I made my own point crystal clear which is that when he walked into Doreen's office on 13th April 1992...

With a scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.

... Mike presented her with what had already been described to her by him as Jack the Ripper's diary ...

On March 9, 1992, before he had purchased the Maybrick scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.

... even though it had no printed dates anywhere on it.

And which indeed didn't either on March 9, 1992, when - according to Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes, remember, dear readers - he had no more than a telephone and thin air in his hands.

I might add that Mike then agreed to collaborate on a book called "The Diary of Jack the Ripper".

A figurative piece of marketing which - actually - publisher Robert Smith came up with - well, he would, wouldn't he? (Tills ringing and who can blame him?)

So there is no doubt that, in Mike's mind, what he showed Doreen on 13th April 1992 was a diary

Proving that he called thin air a 'diary' on March 9, 1992, and took a scrapbook to Doreen on April 13, 1992, proving further that - yes - anything can retrospectively function as a diary. What's your point caller? (His point, dear readers, is to desperately try to get his trousers back up but he's been caught with them down and he just can't bring himself to admit it which should make us all very wary indeed of trusting his so-called 'logic' and his truly embarrassing Lord Orsam impersonation.)

... proving that he didn't think that a Victorian diary needed to have dates printed on it or the year on the cover.

I don't think any of us are in any doubt, dear readers, that almost anything can function as a 'diary' - it's what we call something that (often inadvertently) ends up functioning as what we all know we mean when we hear the word 'diary'.

I won't add anything further lest you accuse me of "changing the subject" but I will just say that there is no evidence whatsoever that when Mike spoke to Earl at the end of March 1992 he knew or even suspected that a Victorian diary might have included printed dates or years, so the fact that he agreed to purchase an 1891 diary cannot be used as evidence that he wasn't intending to use that diary to fake an 1888 diary (something which you have already agreed was possible, i.e. "I actually agreed with Caz many posts back that - in principle at least - an 1891 diary could be used for an 1888 diary").

I think Michael Banks may actually be a bit somewhat disingenuous, what do you think, dear readers? He just keeps citing the bits of posts he likes and ignores the bits he doesn't like. For example, I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one) but that no-one in their right mind who has that aim (to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts) would blindly buy something that had been described as an '1891 diary' without asking the blindingly obvious clarification question around whether the document he was being offered had '1891' emblazoned all over it as the 1891 diary in question did.

That's actually primarily all we're debating here, dear readers (we've just got into an endless mind loop because Banks won't admit he was caught with his pants down so we have to be distracted for a while longer yet, it seems). We're not actually debating what Michael Barrett thought a 'diary' might look like (that's just Sholmes' distraction tactic) - what we're debating is whether even he (Barrett) would be stupid enough to agree to accept such a document without first checking on its suitability for what Sholmes thinks was its purpose. In my book, therefore, this shows that Barrett had some other purpose for the 1891 diary he didn't ask detailed questions about. It's obvious, but it shatters the hoax theory into a million pieces (and this is all ignoring for now the fact that Barrett claimed that it was his wife Anne who sought out and ordered the 1891 diary - a claim which he made in his otherwise impeccably uncorrupted affidavit of January 5, 1995, you know, the one written by Alan Gray in much the way all of Mike's hard-hitting trash mag 'articles' were written by Anne according to Anne [see SocPill2 one day]).

But this is all distraction tactics, dear readers, because he just doesn't want to have to say, "Yes, you caught me with my pants down, Ike, you got me there - I got it wrong about Barrett describing the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' to Doreen Montgomery because - of course - in my world he didn't actually acquire it until March 31, 1992". No amount of bluff and bluster is going to alter the fact that he was caught with his pants down and the fact that he can't just say so should be a warning to you regarding how far you get into bed with his deeply flawed line of reasoning.

[John Wheat]

Well, I'm glad to see you've found someone else who agrees with you, Wheato.

Your of course still wrongly convinced the Diary was written by Maybrick. Sad really.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this certainly was indeed helpful because I couldn't be arsed to look for it - but knew you would for me (ahead of your attempting to spin it, of course). You ain't let me down.



It doesn't logically follow, does it? He didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession (according to you) on March 9 so when he told Doreen Montgomery he had the diary of Jack the Spratt McVitiie, he couldn't possibly be referring to the one he took to London on April 13. For the record, though (if it makes you feel better), I don't have an issue with him calling the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' because that was what its function had become. The only real issue is whether that was by the hand of Maybrick or some other. Either way, there's absolutely no evidence that he didn't have it in his hands when he rang Doreen on March 9.



Let me just add that there is no way you can anti-logic your way out of the bind you've put yourself in. You thought he had the Maybrick scrapbook on March 9 and and therefore thought Barrett thought that was the very definition of a 'diary'. But he couldn't have and still bought it at the O&L auction of March 31. Hmmm, real problem for you. Please see my post of earlier, by the way, as I really don't want to laboriously repeat myself at your whim and - frankly - childish desperation to avoid being seen to have been wrong. Caught with your pants down, no less!



But if your version of events is the true one then he hasn't set eyes on the Maybrick scrapbook yet so his comments to Doreen on March 9 have no relevance to what he eventually took to London on April 13. Come on - you're in a bind - let it go. I know, try to change the subject, that should get you out of this.



Correct. In my version of events, no-one needs to worry about what Mike thinks of Victorian diaries because none of that matters regarding why he attempted to buy one from 1889 or 1890 and eventually settled for the absolutely impossibly crazy year of 1891.



No, no. no. He took what he had on April 13, but he can't have been describing it on March 9 if the 1891 diary is evidence that he was plotting a hoax. So he took what he took on April 13, and that's all we can know about what he thought Victorian diaries looked like.



Correct - but that doesn't alter the fact that Martin Earl described an 1891 diary to him in late March and he lapped it up. Must be a different reason than the one you’re so badly trying to sell, I suggest.



No, only that the 1891 one he was offered must have caused him to dig deeper and find out more about its suitability for a hoax, but he did not so he was not looking for a hoax.

I deleted the rest of your post because I want to go to bed and I think it's just a repetition of your tediously-flawed logic which isn't really logic but more of that amazing less than 100% proof you so love.



Ah ha - I told you he was going to try to change the subject, dear readers - don't fall for it!

Ike,

Out of all your responses, this one seems to exhibit your biggest comprehension failure.

When you say:

"He didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession (according to you) on March 9 so when he told Doreen Montgomery he had the diary of Jack the Spratt McVitiie, he couldn't possibly be referring to the one he took to London on April 13."

this demonstrates a complete failure of logic (a) because it's simply not true, considering that Eddie Lyons might have shown it to him in the pub but he might not yet have bought it (which is one of the theories which has been bandied about), and (b) because if what you intended to say was that he didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession on March 9, and hadn't seen it, this means that the entire Battlecrease theory is false, leaving a Barrett forgery as the only option, so that we don't even need to consider what Mike thought about Victorian diaries.

I believe I made my own point crystal clear which is that when he walked into Doreen's office on 13th April 1992, Mike presented her with what had already been described to her by him as Jack the Ripper's diary even though it had no printed dates anywhere on it. I might add that Mike then agreed to collaborate on a book called "The Diary of Jack the Ripper". So there is no doubt that, in Mike's mind, what he showed Doreen on 13th April 1992 was a diary, proving that he didn't think that a Victorian diary needed to have dates printed on it or the year on the cover.

I won't add anything further lest you accuse me of "changing the subject" but I will just say that there is no evidence whatsoever that when Mike spoke to Earl at the end of March 1992 he knew or even suspected that a Victorian diary might have included printed dates or years, so the fact that he agreed to purchase an 1891 diary cannot be used as evidence that he wasn't intending to use that diary to fake an 1888 diary (something which you have already agreed was possible, i.e. "I actually agreed with Caz many posts back that - in principle at least - an 1891 diary could be used for an 1888 diary").

[Iconoclast]

01-20-2025, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
It's clearly a modern hoax that was odds on written by the Barretts.

Today, 01:53 PM posted by John Wheat
This is still the case despite the amount of bilge on this thread.

Well, I'm glad to see you've found someone else who agrees with you, Wheato.

[rjpalmer]

Come on, RJ - at least be accurate when you're making stuff up.

I'm not inaccurate, Tom.

If you'd occasionally pull your head out of Paul Feldman's book long enough to read David Barrat's essays, you'd have known this. Ciao.