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

[Iconoclast]

You've got totally the wrong end of the stick, Ike.

Of course I have - it's a Herlock Sholmes post.

I think I've already made it clear and am not sure I can spell it out any clearer but I'll have one more go.

Watch him try to pull his trousers back up, everyone!

Yes, I am fully aware that, [now that you've pointed it out, Ike] under my version of events, Mike would not have had Jack the Ripper's diary in his hand on the day he told Doreen he had "Jack the Ripper's diary".

I think that's bollocks but on you go ...

If that's your big point it doesn't help you.

Of course it helps, man - March 9 and 10, 1992, are the only days we have Barrett on record referring to the James Maybrick document as a 'diary'. There is no other record that I am aware of until well after April 13, 1992, when everyone was calling whatever he turned up with that day as a 'diary' so we don't know his unique position on the Maybrick scrapbook, only what he said on March 9 and 10, 1992, a day you tell us he could NOT have been referring to the Maybrick scrapbook.

I'm not necessarily talking about what was in Mike's mind as at 9th March 1992. I'm talking about what was in his mind on 13th April 1992 when he brought the old photograph album down to London under the guise of it being "Jack the Ripper's diary".

Well, we know what was in his mind on March 9 and 10, 1992, but we don't know what was discussed on April 13, 1992. There is no record (that I am aware of) of Mike Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' after March 10, 1992, until such time as everyone was calling it a 'diary'.

How could he have presented it to Doreen as the Ripper's diary, having already told her he had the Ripper's diary, if, in his mind, he believed all Victorian diaries had printed dates on every page and/or the year printed on the cover? That's the point.

No, that's not the point, that's just your desperation to be seen to be right when you were clearly wrong. Barrett turned up with the Maybrick scrapbook and he therefore - given what he had said on March 9 and 10, 1992 - had to go along with the 'this is a diary' notion: it had to be baked-in as a necessary claim whether he really believed fit was a 'diary' or not. But - either way - there is no evidence that he ever thought of the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' in your interpretation of what happened!

So, when he walked into Doreen's office with what he had already described as "Jack the Ripper's diary" he must have believed he was holding something which plausibly looked like a Victorian diary.

Nope. He had to present what he had as 'diary' but there's no evidence that he actually believed it. The evidence lies on March 9 and 10, 1992, not April 13, 1992, but your hoax belief does not permit that to be a comment about the Maybrick scrapbook because in your theory he wouldn't acquire it for another three weeks.

So THAT is the best evidence we have as to what Mike thought a Victorian diary looked like.

See, this is you adopting the 'less than 100% is still proof' position which obviously gets you out of every difficult spot you've ever been in in your life (in your head). THAT is not evidence of anything because we have no record of what he said, only what he did, and - in your interpretation of events - he had no choice but to present the Mabrick scrapbook as the thing he had a month earlier first referred to as a 'diary' even though he hadn't seen it at that point.

And yes, I'm aware that by 13th April 1992 he had seen one real Victorian diary but that didn't prevent him from presenting Doreen with something which looked nothing like this, which he'd already described as a diary and must have expected her to regard as a diary.

None of this is proof that he believed the Maybrick scrapbook to be a 'diary'. Only that he had no choice (if he was to keep the April 13 meeting) to say that this was what he had been referring to.

Now if anything is not clear about this, please tell me what is not clear and I'll do my best to explain but please don't pretend not to understand.

Hey, hold your horses, pal - you are the king of the I-don't-understand-the-awkward-posts! It's perfectly clear what you are saying - it is, 'Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong'.

Now, obviously, everyone knew you weren't going to be wrong. You never are, are you? I don't think you even understand the concept. I don't trust a word you say because I know you will never admit to an error of any sort.

I'm not going to go back through your posts - I leave that for people with no other life to lead - but I'm confident that your argument was never that, having told Doreen on March 9, 1992, he thought he might have Jack the Ripper's 'diary', Barrett's eventual arrival with the old scrapbook on April 13, 1992, was evidence that he genuinely believed diaries had no dates thereby backing-up your 1891 diary fantasy. If it was a hoax, he turned up with whatever he could get his hands on and that doesn't imply evidence that he thought the 1891 diary would be blank. In truth, of course, he turned up on April 13 with what he had on March 9 so - yes - I will agree that he must have called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' in the real world (as opposed to your world), but clearly it buggers up the whole hoax theory if he had the scrapbook before he had the 1891 diary so I wouldn't gloat too quickly if I were you.

Hope you can understand all of the above, though the good money is on 1) you saying you don't and 2) us all being inflicted with another one of your ugly 'look at what you said on this day and that day' posts so that you can go to bed tonight thinking how clever you've been. The rest of us saw you with your pants down and they're still down, but that won't bother you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes you did, and the evidence you cited was Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'dairy' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery but - of course - he didn't get it until 22 days later (according to you and your Love Dad and Love Uncle).



Oh, do clarify how.



This error - IIRC - was caused by my thinking about Doreen's letter to him of April 8, 1992, trying to check if he had a similar discussion with her after March 31, 1992, at which point I suddenly realised it was irrelevant because he had had that conversation with her on March 9 and that was all that was relevant here.



I'm thinking a Scotty Nelson is in order here, what do you think, Scotty?

You've got totally the wrong end of the stick, Ike.

I think I've already made it clear and am not sure I can spell it out any clearer but I'll have one more go.

Yes, I am fully aware that, under my version of events, Mike would not have had Jack the Ripper's diary in his hand on the day he told Doreen he had "Jack the Ripper's diary".

If that's your big point it doesn't help you.

I'm not necessarily talking about what was in Mike's mind as at 9th March 1992. I'm talking about what was in his mind on 13th April 1992 when he brought the old photograph album down to London under the guise of it being "Jack the Ripper's diary". How could he have presented it to Doreen as the Ripper's diary, having already told her he had the Ripper's diary, if, in his mind, he believed all Victorian diaries had printed dates on every page and/or the year printed on the cover? That's the point.

So, when he walked into Doreen's office with what he had already described as "Jack the Ripper's diary" he must have believed he was holding something which plausibly looked like a Victorian diary.

So THAT is the best evidence we have as to what Mike thought a Victorian diary looked like.

And yes, I'm aware that by 13th April 1992 he had seen one real Victorian diary but that didn't prevent him from presenting Doreen with something which looked nothing like this, which he'd already described as a diary and must have expected her to regard as a diary.

Now if anything is not clear about this, please tell me what is not clear and I'll do my best to explain but please don't pretend not to understand.

[Iconoclast]

I've already answered it by saying that there is evidence as to what Mike thought of as a Victorian diary, namely that such a diary could be undated throughout.

Yes you did, and the evidence you cited was Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'dairy' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery but - of course - he didn't get it until 22 days later (according to you and your Love Dad and Love Uncle).

So the premise of your question is false.

Oh, do clarify how.

Plus he did not have "a tiny diary with "1891" in his hands" when he told Doreen that he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

This error - IIRC - was caused by my thinking about Doreen's letter to him of April 8, 1992, trying to check if he had a similar discussion with her after March 31, 1992, at which point I suddenly realised it was irrelevant because he had had that conversation with her on March 9 and that was all that was relevant here.

If I've misunderstood what you're saying I'll be happy to answer any question you have if you could rephrase it so that it makes sense.

I'm thinking a Scotty Nelson is in order here, what do you think, Scotty?

[rjpalmer]

It's arrogance on stilts to believe that Keith would consider Palmer to have the keys to unlock the truth, when he has shown himself to be pathologically incapable of looking at any evidence objectively and asking himself if he might, just possibly, have been 100% wrong about Anne Graham's role in the diary affair.

This is truly a bizarre comment. I'm merely asking where a woman worked in the 1970s, because I'm following up a rather strange lead. It might even conceivably help the diary's cause rather than hurt it--I have no idea. I'm just looking into it to get at the truth. I have a bloke in Australia that can help me, but I thought it might save a little time if the diary folks would cooperate, but clearly independent thought is not allowed---one must be part of the inner sanctum. Ah well, no skin off my nose.

The weirdest part is that I'm supposedly "100%" wrong about Anne Graham, yet Caroline's own theory dictates that Keith Skinner--who spent hundreds of hours in Anne Graham's company---was entirely wrong to believe Anne's 'in the family story,' when he told this forum, more than once, that he did believe her. As such, why should I or any rational person trust the judgment of people just because they knew Anne? According to Caroline's own theory, they knew her just to be deceived by her.

It's bizarre.

[Iconoclast]

I thought that we were all allowed 10+ years like you and your opportunities to rebut ‘one off instance’?

Come, come, Herlock. There is no such rule which makes me suspect that you've thought, "****, I've been caught out good and proper with my pants right down this time so I need to attempt a bit of distraction and hope I never have to admit that I just didn't think that one through properly".



Also: "But, he's right, I did say that Barrett called the scrapbook a 'diary' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery on March 9, 1992, and - of course - he can't have done because according to my Love Dad he didn't actually get his hands on it until March 31, 1992, so he would have to actually be calling 'thin air' a 'diary' on March 9, 1992, and I think that's a step too far even for me to try to pull off".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whenever you’re ready, by the way …

I've already answered it by saying that there is evidence as to what Mike thought of as a Victorian diary, namely that such a diary could be undated throughout. So the premise of your question is false. Plus he did not have "a tiny diary with "1891" in his hands" when he told Doreen that he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

If I've misunderstood what you're saying I'll be happy to answer any question you have if you could rephrase it so that it makes sense.

[caz]

Such a silly person. You write as though it is a weakness or a sin to refine one's beliefs or theories based on new information--or in this, case, on being reminded of old information.

The exact opposite is true. It's a strength, not a weakness.

How many times have I tried to tell Palmer this, when he has mockingly delved into the past to point out perceived contradictions in what was posted years ago, and what the same person posts today, completely oblivious to having been told that the available information has steadily increased over the interval?

It's not a great strength to revisit past assumptions and arguments, to see if you can make new ones, based on the same material, a better fit for a theory that has always lacked evidence. If an argument requires change or refinement to make an old theory work today, based on the same facts, it may be time to revisit the theory and the conclusion, instead of holding on to it for dear life. If the old house may collapse under the increasing weight of unsupported speculation, it is unlikely to be saved by rearranging the bricks to put the stronger looking ones at the front and the weaker looking ones round the back.

They say you should always put your best goods in the shop window, but if you don't have any goods to display, it doesn't help to change one colour-coded 'temporarily unavailable' sticker for another, in the hope that one will appeal to the customer if and when there is something new to sell.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there an emoji for drumming one's fingers on one's desk?

Of course there is!

I thought that we were all allowed 10+ years like you and your opportunities to rebut ‘one off instance’?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How convenient and utterly predictable, to use Mike's strange relationship with time and date in that affidavit and beyond it, to suggest that his 'recently' can be interpreted as loosely as you need it to be, to suit any argument. He claimed that Anne had asked for the diary 'specifically recently when I saw her at her home address', whenever you suppose that may have been. When he first engaged Gray, it was to find out where Anne was living, so his latest visit to her home could only have been after she had been located, or before she had moved to an address that was unknown to Mike.

Why he should have had the red diary on him at the time of this alleged visit, or would have made a special effort to go back home, pick it up and return it to his wayward wife, like a golden retriever expecting a biscuit, God alone knows, when it supposedly represented solid evidence of their involvement in forgery, but that's more your problem to solve than mine. It beats me at the best of times to rationalise all Mike's known actions, never mind the unknown ones and the motives he claimed for them. Maybe you will have better luck and a keener nose. You may even earn yourself a biscuit - or a bowl of Golden Grahams, for knowing the inner workings of a cereal con artist's brain.

So the short answer to my question is that you don't know if "recently" included the previous 12 months.

ThankS

[Iconoclast]

Whenever you’re ready, by the way …

Is there an emoji for drumming one's fingers on one's desk?



Of course there is!

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are starting to read carelessly, Herlock, in your rush to try and have the last word, which is doomed to failure. The only other explanation is that it is a deliberate misreading to avoid admitting you are wrong about this one.

I made it crystal clear that I don't think the 'Barretts', as a couple [with a young daughter to care for, remember], would not have cared about bailiffs coming round because Mike had an unpaid bill for £25. I said that it was clear that Anne cared very much about Mike being chased for the money, but that if he had been living on his own at the time, there is ample evidence of his attitude towards his financial commitments from January 1994, when he started to see substantial improvements to his bank balance, to conclude that he could not have cared less about a sodding £25 diary in May 1992 if Anne had not done the caring for him.

I'd love to know - and please do tell me - how you thought you were making it "crystal clear"that the Barretts would have cared about bailiffs appearing at their door by saying to me:

"Bailiffs? Are you having a laugh at your readers' expense?"

If you were actually agreeing with me that the Barretts would have cared about the bailiffs, thus ensuring that they paid their debt to Martin Earl, what could you possibly have meant? It's unfathomable.

And by way of reminder, for context ,as to how our conversation went:

CB: Are you seriously suggesting that a pair of fraudsters could have seen 'no way out' of paying for that little 1891 diary, at any stage, but still managed to pull off a scam that would go on to make them thousands of pounds?

MB: Your question about whether Mike and Anne could have seen a way out of paying for the diary is just ridiculous. You might as well ask me why they didn't shoplift all their groceries every week and carry out insurance frauds for a living. Honestly, Caz, by May, Barrett was legally obliged to pay for the diary and failure would have just led to a county court judgment being obtained against him and the subsequent arrival of the bailiffs at 12 Goldie Street. Paying the £25 was the most sensible option, and indeed, the only realistic one.

CB: Bailiffs? Are you having a laugh at your readers' expense? Mike went on to have his home repossessed because he wasn't paying the mortgage after Anne left him, despite the thousands of pounds rolling in from sales of Shirley's book. In the best George Best tradition, he spent a lot of money on booze and anything but the roof over his head, and the rest he just squandered. While Anne evidently cared very much about Mike owing £25 and being chased for it while they were together, would Mike have given two hoots if she hadn't been around, or didn't feel obliged to cover his debts? Would she have been prepared to pay regardless of the price? How much would have been too much?

MB: "No, I'm not having a laugh when I mention bailiffs. If you think that the Barrets wouldn't have cared about bailiffs appearing at their door to collect a payment of much greater than £25, or seize goods of an equivalent value, you are truly living on a different planet to the one I'm on. But, if the issue of payment tells is nothing about why Mike wanted the diary in the first place, is it even worth discussing?"

As far as I can see, it's you who is starting to read and/or post carelessly, alternatively it's a deliberate misreading to avoid admitting you are wrong about this.

The short point, which I shouldn't need to repeat, is that there was no realistic option for the Barretts but to pay Martin Earl the sum of £25 that he was legally owed.

[caz]

When the affidavit states that Mike handed over the diary to Anne "recently", how do you know that this didn't mean some time during the previous 12 months and thus possibly before Mike had even met Gray?

How convenient and utterly predictable, to use Mike's strange relationship with time and date in that affidavit and beyond it, to suggest that his 'recently' can be interpreted as loosely as you need it to be, to suit any argument. He claimed that Anne had asked for the diary 'specifically recently when I saw her at her home address', whenever you suppose that may have been. When he first engaged Gray, it was to find out where Anne was living, so his latest visit to her home could only have been after she had been located, or before she had moved to an address that was unknown to Mike.

Why he should have had the red diary on him at the time of this alleged visit, or would have made a special effort to go back home, pick it up and return it to his wayward wife, like a golden retriever expecting a biscuit, God alone knows, when it supposedly represented solid evidence of their involvement in forgery, but that's more your problem to solve than mine. It beats me at the best of times to rationalise all Mike's known actions, never mind the unknown ones and the motives he claimed for them. Maybe you will have better luck and a keener nose. You may even earn yourself a biscuit - or a bowl of Golden Grahams, for knowing the inner workings of a cereal con artist's brain.

[rjpalmer]

Okay, so Palmer has not worked this out based on any actual evidence, but has worked out how to have his two provenance-breaking cakes and scoff them both, by reversing his previous position of agreeing with Feldman that the electricians were obviously just liars and scammers to a man, because two of them - one anonymously - had brought up the subject of being paid for handing Feldman a fake Battlecrease provenance.

Such a silly person. You write as though it is a weakness or a sin to refine one's beliefs or theories based on new information--or in this, case, on being reminded of old information.

The exact opposite is true. It's a strength, not a weakness.

By contrast, what you and Tom Mitchell constantly indulge in what is known as motivated reasoning. You're already emotionally attached to your rigid beliefs, not unlike religious fanatics, and any new information does not change those beliefs. There is no room for growth or change. Instead, you just work overtime to make this new information fit your long-held assumptions, even if you have to bend logic into pretzel shapes to do so.

He is now suggesting that Feldman lied in his book and put the blame and shame on a group of thoroughly honest workmen, who were offered significant financial inducements to do so, but steadfastly refused to compromise their good names by telling him what he wanted to hear, knowing it wasn't true. None of them would ever have done "foreigners" either, to get paid for private jobs that avoided going through the firm's books. Squeaky clean and no amount of filthy lucre and cheque waving could tempt them to lie for this stranger with more money in his trousers than morals. And Ike's auntie had more in her trousers than any woman had a right to.

I have no idea what you're banging on about, because it in no way resembles what I wrote or what I believe.

Although there are numerous evasions, inventions, half-truths, distortions, and absurdities in Feldman's book, I think 'lie' is too strong of a word and demonstrates a certain shallowness when it comes to your grasp of human psychology---you're too black & white--or more likely pretend to be when attacking your perceived enemies.

People are often unaware of their own behavior. I imagine Feldman would have felt scandalized when Shirley Harrison pointed out that his methods of promising money were "appalling" (her word) and contaminating.

I think the relevant passage in Feldman's book is not a lie, but rather, nearly the opposite, though he's coy about it: his realization that the unnamed electrician "told him what he wanted to hear" --if the price was right. It's obvious enough from your own book that Dodd, Dodd's lawyer, and even Robert Smith must have come to the same conclusion. It's also interesting and highly relevant that another electrician bent over backwards to launch his own investigation and reported back to Feldman that he had solved Feldman's "problem."

What could that unnamed 'problem' have been, other than Feldman's lack of a credible provenance? Why would he think Feldman had a 'problem,' unless Feldman let it be known?

That Feldman contaminated his own investigation is obvious, and it is obvious, too, that he came to realize this.

Even Feldman wised up and realized his own behavior had kicked into motion a hornet's nest of rumors and graspers. Much like Shirley's fear, a year later, that Feldman had done it again with Anne Graham.

Any reasonable person can see that from a mile away.

Now I'm off to do something more productive. Have a great day!

P.S. Let me stress that although Shirley was right to have this fear, I don't think Anne's motivation in telling her 'in the family' provenance was necessarily motivated by money. But then, I've been reminded that I "don't know Anne from soap."

[rjpalmer]

Better late than never, then, eh? Who was going to stress this publicly back in 1995-2002, before we chose to refer to it in our book?

Not a big believer in 'duty to warn,' eh?

The very public promotion of Anne' provenance in The Ripperologist, in the forward to Anne's own book, in Feldman and Harrison's books, in Paul Daniel's essay, on the Bob Azurdia Show, on this very forum, etc etc. and no one thought it might be relevant to inform the public that Paul Feldman had promised to "make Anne a millionaire" if she promoted his theories?

There's a very prominent reporter on this side of the pond who has been skewered for this same ethos. He had uncovered some highly relevant information about a certain notorious political figure but didn't report it until after the election. He was 'saving it for his book,' he later explained.

Water under the bridge, of course, but I wonder how livelier those discussions would have been back in the days of Peter Birchwood and Karoline Leech and Melvin Harris, etc., had they been told...

But I'm more interested in if Feldman made any similar promises of filthy lucre to any electricians. No one here could possibly answer that question unless his phone was bugged. I thank you again for raising this interesting issue.

RP

[caz]

No, I'm not having a laugh when I mention bailiffs. If you think that the Barrets wouldn't have cared about bailiffs appearing at their door to collect a payment of much greater than £25, or seize goods of an equivalent value, you are truly living on a different planet to the one I'm on. But, if the issue of payment tells is nothing about why Mike wanted the diary in the first place, is it even worth discussing?

You are starting to read carelessly, Herlock, in your rush to try and have the last word, which is doomed to failure. The only other explanation is that it is a deliberate misreading to avoid admitting you are wrong about this one.

I made it crystal clear that I don't think the 'Barretts', as a couple [with a young daughter to care for, remember], would not have cared about bailiffs coming round because Mike had an unpaid bill for £25. I said that it was clear that Anne cared very much about Mike being chased for the money, but that if he had been living on his own at the time, there is ample evidence of his attitude towards his financial commitments from January 1994, when he started to see substantial improvements to his bank balance, to conclude that he could not have cared less about a sodding £25 diary in May 1992 if Anne had not done the caring for him.