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

[Iconoclast]

What nonsense is this now, Ike? Where did I ever say that Earl and Barrett were "in a rush"?

No, I've decided the Lionesses can wait and that I should not let you away with this mince ..

By definition ...

By whose definition?

... it must have been relatively quick call. Earl's purpose was to inform Barrett that he had a diary available. He would have described the diary. That's it. Mike then would have had to respond. Either he wants the diary or he doesn't.

So far, so good, unexpectedly.

He would have had to think fast, on his feet.

And then there it is - the made-up bit to suit your argument. Why on God's good earth would he need to think fast? Why could he not think normally?

Of course he did. He didn't have the luxury of 20 years of thinking about it, like you have.

Well, it is true that I have had a lot longer than he had because - even in those days - 'phone calls were not twenty years long, but this is clearly not the point. The point is that Barrett was not having to think fast at all. There are no grounds whatsoever for you to assert that what could be a short call had to be a short call. You just said that for effect, and we all know you did. You know you did but you're never knowingly wrong so you've already rationalised it (it a truly irrational manner, I have to say).

The short point is that it is nuts to say with hindsight, knowing what the red diary looked like, and with 20/20 hindsight vision, that Mike must have asked certain questions of Earl if he was genuinely attempting a forgery.

Again, dear readers, note that the poster has set up a straw man here - if you agree with him you must be nuts! I don't think - to play Sholmes' game - I've ever said Barrett must have asked certain questions, have I? But I have definitely said he must have asked critical questions, chief amongst which would be "Does it have the year printed on every page?". It's like he was off to the Wirral for the first time (maybe to plant his watch) and you imagine he got on the first bus that came along and didn't think to ask the driver, "Is this bus going to the Wirral and what have you, Wac?".

No, he must not. Earl had never even seen the diary. So questions were pointless from the very start.

You must be incredibly easy to fleece, mate. Whether I knew Earl had seen the diary or not, I would not be agreeing to shifting him £66 without first asking a few questions and seeking clarification. Why is your version of events so fundamentally pivoted upon Barrett doing it the truly stupid way? Ah, yes, it's because you need him to be truly stupid otherwise your scenario immediately falls apart. And he may well have been truly stupid, but you also believe a few days later he wrote a hoax the renowned scriptwriter Bruce Robinson said would have been his personal greatest work (pedant alert: or words to that effect).

But that assumes any questions had even occurred to Mike who'd likely been told that nearly all the pages in the diary were blank.

Only one question needs to occur to Barrett - "[thinks] I wonder what Mr Earl means by nearly all the pages are blank? If I wasn't having to think so fast, I would probably just ask him".

Despite seeming to agree with Roger about the futility of theorizing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that's all you seem to want to do.

My dear, dear readers, who around here is constantly using 'could', 'might', 'would'?

We do not and cannot know exactly what Earl said to Barrett ...

We can make an educated guess based upon what Martin Earl reported in writing in 2020, though, could we not? Caz has just reported it (again) so the educated amongst us could take a quick deeksie and make some informed decisions on that basis.

... and we do not and cannot exactly know how Barrett interpreted what he was being told.

That is true but - again - based upon Mr Earl's testimony in 2020, the intelligent amongst us could make some educated guesses because we know that Mr Earl was simply describing an 1891 diary not the quantum mechanics of a universe springing spontaneously out of a state of nothingness.

That's all there is.

And with Martin earl's testimony in 2020 coupled with our understanding of the blindingly obvious, that's more than enough.

I'm not making any positive point about the Earl/Barrett conversation or the red diary. You're the one who has been attempting to make a positive point based on no evidence and it has failed.

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong

[caz]

If you can point to where I have ever said that Anne "thought her own disguised handwriting might bear some relation" to Maybrick's I will provide the explanation you've asked for. But I'm confident I've never said anything like that Caz. On the other hand, you categorically said that "she'd have known it didn't resemble Maybrick's" and I asked you to tell me how you she would have known this, but you haven't been able to do so.

I explained that the chances of Anne disguising her handwriting and it resembling Maybrick's by pure chance, if she'd never seen any examples, are as near to zero as could have made any difference, and she'd have known that unless she was brain dead.

Put on your own thinking cap and imagine trying to disguise your own handwriting, without ever seeing mine, when writing out a hundred times:

'My name is Caroline Anne Brown and I must not write any more limericks on the blackboard about my teacher, Mr Banks.'

Tell me you know it wouldn't resemble my handwriting, and can't imagine how it might - seeing as there is nothing you don't know or can't imagine.

Right now, I suspect there are a few readers making up their own limericks.

[Iconoclast]

***bump***

I think it might be reasonable to assume he ain't going to be telling you, RJ. Just wanted to save you the wait.

[Iconoclast]

Ready?

I'm trying to get downstairs for the build up to the Lionesses, but if I must ...

[Totally irrelevant list of quotations from Caz mentioning the word 'printed' ...]

Did you do that lot from memory, Rain Man?

No, of course not, you just used the built-in search facility. But to what end? To show that Caz had used the word 'printed' loads of time to absolutely no-one's surprise except perhaps yours.

[Totally unhinged rant about more quotations from Caz mentioning the word 'printed' ...]

And then we get ...

Yet Michael Barrett is supposed to be the person who can't comprehend English.

Just ask the question, Mike - just ask Mr Earl the question then maybe all this unhinged nightmare will finally go away. Oh, please just ask him the obvious question, "Does it have '1891' machine-printed on every page or even handwritten on every page, Mr Earl?".

What's also particularly interesting is how, from 2023, in most of her posts on the subject, she changes her wording of the description of the red diary from it having mere "printed dates" to it suddenly having "printed dates throughout", obviously attempting to align with Keith's "dated 1891 throughout", but, by improving upon what Keith had written, she was implicitly acknowledging that Keith's description was defective in that it was not sufficiently clear and needed improving.

OMG - would all of this unhinged verbal diarrhoea clear up if we all just said what you are so desperate to hear? "Yes, Herlock, you're right after all!". I have no ******* idea what the question is anymore and I'll bet few others do either. I'm exhausted!

Above all, we see clear evidence in her posts, especially those of 7 May 2020, 28 May 2020, 5 June 2020 and 15 January 2024, that she was claiming that Martin Earl would have told Mike in advance about the "printed" pages before he accepted the diary. I mean, she literally says in her 15 January 2024 post that Earl "would have" described the tiny diary to Mike "with its printed dates throughout", once again modifying Keith Skinner's own apparently defective description which used the word "throughout" but did not, of course, use the word "printed". In her 7 May 2020 post, she even, would you believe, quoted Earl in some fantastical imaginary dialogue as telling Mike that the diary had "dates printed on every page".

OMG - he's still going on about it. You lost us at "Hello", man - what the hell are you trying to show us you're right about this time???

Finally, in case you're wondering, Ike. Did you ever do the same thing? Oh yes, you did. In an imaginary dialogue between a fictional Earl and a fictional Barrett, you posted on 4 July 2020 in #5461 of "One Incontrovertible":

Oh religious-guy-on-bike! Now he's including quotations from me! Let's see where this leads us ...

"Earl: "Well this one isn’t exactly blank, Mr Barrett. As I said, it has the dates printed on every page – 1891, on every page, three or four times on each page.”

Quick reminder, dear readers, Herlock is quoting from a conversation that I imagined might have happened! Let's see what amazing conclusions he draws from this made-up dialogue of mine ...

The interesting [Ike: debatable] thing about this is that, despite the words "As I said", the fictional Earl had not, in fact, told the fictional Barrett that the dates were printed on every page earlier in the imaginary dialogue. What he'd done was read out verbatim Keith's Skinner's description of the red diary which didn't exist in March 1992 but which includes "Nearly all the pages are blank" (a statement which would appear to contradict the statement that the dates are printed on every page, as Caz acknowledged) plus "dated 1891 throughout" which date of 1891, to the extent anyone being told of this understood how its existence was consistent with nearly all the pages of the diary being blank, could, in theory, have been written in pencil by the owner at places throughout the diary, but not necessarily on every page.

Dear readers, please just say, "Yes, Herlock - you're right after all". He might stop!

To repeat my original point. There is no evidence or good reason to think that Mike was told by Martin Earl that there were 1891 dates printed on every page of the diary. Even Keith Skinner did not use the words "printed on every page" in his own full and detailed description of that diary which, unlike Earl's supplier, he wrote knowing its significance to Mike's claimed forgery plot. So it cannot possibly be claimed that Earl's supplier must have said that the dates were printed on every page of the diary in his own full description of the diary.

I need to stop here because I am genuinely pissing myself - figuratively and nigh-on literally. Have you ever in all the years the Casebook has been running seen much a truly pointless waste of someone's time? And - although I could have been - I'm not referring to mine!

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong So - Honestly - Just Tell Him He Wasn't and Go and Watch the Lionesses Instead. That is, Get a Life.

[caz]

What I said was a simple statement of fact. Don't you like facts?

Or are you perhaps confusing me with Keith Skinner?

Didn't Keith once call for Anne Graham's handwriting to be analyzed, and didn't he even say that the diary's supporters should pay for it?

Was he similarly wasting everyone's time twenty years ago when he made a similar 'complaint'?

My own comment was to challenge a false impression. You have stated many times that the diary cannot be shown to be in either Maybrick's handwriting nor in Mike's nor Anne's. Sometimes you're more adamant than that.

Yet, this is deceptive; the best handwriting experts and document examiners in the world specifically checked Maybrick's handwriting against the diary and kicked it to the curb, whereas no such comparison was ever made to Mike or Anne's. The experts weren't asked--for obvious reasons. Therefore, it's a false equivalency, but I suspect you knew that when you wrote it.

I certainly don't know that a highly qualified handwriting expert couldn't compare disguised handwriting against a person's 'normal' handwriting and come up with a compelling or intelligent assessment. Some claim (including, if I recall, Dr. Giles) that a person can't entirely disguise their handwriting. So yes, I think it is possible, and would be worth doing, but the question is whether it would be conclusive in a legal sense. That's a big problem, isn't it?

Can you appreciate that any such attempt at a comparison would almost certainly lead to legal complications? I suspect Anne Graham wouldn't like it, and we would have to rely on Keith's treasure trove of examples of Anne's writing, so he, too, might find himself entangled unless he could obtain Anne's explicit permission. [If I recall, you yourself complained, didn't you, when David 'Orsam' uploaded a sample of Anne's private correspondence?] So, while I suspect someone with Dr. Giles' experience could attempt such a comparison, and give us an intelligent assessment, would they be willing to go on record and risk a libel suit if it can't be conclusively proven?

Maybe that's why Keith never proceeded with this twenty years ago?

So, you're quite right. All we have is amateur opinion. It is very likely that is all we will ever have¹. And your own opinion falls squarely into that category: amateur.

I wish I could be as confident as you are that the writing isn't Anne's. I really wish I could be.

But I'm not.


1. Unless it's after the death of the party concerned. One can't libel the dead.

All this is a roundabout way of agreeing with me and Herlock that all we have is 'amateur' opinion - Palmer's being no better or worse than mine - and we are never likely to get the professional one we would need to inform us whose amateur comparisons are on the money and whose are wide of the mark, even if that were possible.

Keith once believed and may still believe, as Palmer does, that it would be worth a try, if legal obstacles could be overcome, and I have no idea now either way, because he who must be obeyed and is always right has insisted it is impossible for anyone, professional and amateur alike, to positively identify a forger who has disguised their handwriting - luckily for Anne, or convenient for anyone falsely accusing her - so Palmer needs to take that one up with Herlock, not me. I'm caught between two stools - or a word that rhymes with 'stools'.

[rjpalmer]

***bump***

I understand that Keith doesn't care to cooperate with Diary skeptics, but if he's monitoring these boards, I wonder if he could confirm what hospital or clinic Anne Graham worked at 'near Sydney' in around 1973-1975?

Shirley Harrison implies that it was at the 'Caringbah Hospital,' but no such hospital exists, and it is not clear from Shirley's writing if Anne confirmed this, or whether it was just Steve Powell's suggestion.

I can eventually find out on my own, as Australian nurses needed to register each year, and these registration papers almost certainly still exist, but it would save time.

Thanks.

[Iconoclast]

Where did I ever say that Earl and Barrett were "in a rush"?

Honestly, only you.

For example, you used to query only why Mike wanted an 1890 diary within his 1880-1890 timeframe until I pointed out to you that 1889 was equally implausible if you're using a dated diary. You then changed to 1889 and 1890 but that was after literally years to think about it and after I'd drawn your attention to your failure of logic!

The logic holds that all that matters is that impossible years were requested and accepted which is why I focused in on 1890 for years. I most certainly did not change my phraseology to 1889 and 1890 because of something you said - it occurred to me perfectly naturally, but how very you to claim otherwise.

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong

PS After Caz's heroic #1481, I don't think any of us have anything else to add. She absolutely eviscerated the argument in favour of Barrett seeking a diary to hoax James Maybrick's thoughts into. And I'm not just saying that because she's got a huge switchblade in her pocket.

[Iconoclast]

Will you stop saying what "we all know" about diaries?

I will if you will.

It's absolutely untrue. It's not even true of modern diaries and it's certainly not true of historical diaries. I mean, diaries with printed dates in them didn't even exist before 1812, yet people were keeping diaries long before this.

You're getting yourself mixed up again regarding form and function. Everyone knows that if someone said to them "What are the characteristics of a diary you would find in WH Smiths", they would all give the same answer, "It's a book with spaces for each of the days of the year and generally speaking it's dated. That's what I think of when you say the word 'diary' to me. Some diaries might not have the year on every page but generally they do. Some diaries might not be dated at all, but simply have the days of the year printed. Of course, something - like a notebook, say - can also function as a 'diary' both when it is still blank and also after it has been written in; but I wouldn't think of one of those if you said the word 'diary' to me. It's a bit like if you said to me 'don't think about a pink elephant' - I have no choice but to think of a pink elephant. Same if you say the word 'diary' - I can't stop my brain from imagining a book with dates and spaces for each day of the year, even though I know that doesn't have to be what you yourself actually meant and even though I know my options are actually wider than that".

For all we know, Mike thought that printed diaries didn't exist before, say, 1912. It's not exactly common knowledge that John Letts started selling the first pre-printed commercial diary in 1812.

Why would our Liverpool scally think of anything other than that which every one of us thinks about when we hear the word 'diary'? And - more relevant to our discussion - why on earth would he not simply ask the critical question if someone offered him one from an impossible year for the murderous thoughts of James Maybrick?

So, Ike, would there be any problem in someone accepting a 1791 diary to create a fake 1788 diary? Or a 1691 diary to create a fake 1688 diary? Because those diaries couldn't possibly contain printed dates, could they?

No, such a person would have no choice because the default form of a diary which we all immediately think of when we hear the word was not yet in existence. Obviously.

Please answer these questions, and don't fudge.

Asked and answered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ike,

If you're still wondering about the significance of the word "printed", and why it's noteworthy that this word is not found in Keith Skinner's full and detailed description of the 1891 diary, let me enlighten you with some extracts from a few posts by Caz over the past seven years. Ready? Let's go:

28 February 2018 (#1230 of "Acquiring a Victorian Diary"):

"Did it not occur to Mike that anything with a printed date that was inconsistent with the narrative - especially if it appeared on every page - would not do at all?"

7 May 2020 (#437 of "Maybrick -a Problem in Logic"):

"Mike really should have paid more attention when Martin Earl was talking the item through with him, as he did as a matter of course with all his customers, to get their agreement before purchasing it from his supplier. “It’s a small diary for the year 1891, Mr Barrett, X by Y inches, with the dates printed on every page.""

22 May 2020 (#552 of "Maybrick – a Problem in Logic"):

"Occasionally, as in Mike's case, Martin took the risk and agreed to send him the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, so he could see it for himself and decide whether to send it back unwanted or buy it".

28 May 2020 (#590 of "Maybrick – a Problem in Logic"):

"when Martin Earl called to ask if a tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, and no pages that were literally blank, would be any good…."

1 June 2020 (#616 of "Maybrick – a Problem in Logic"):

"This reminds me that before R.J took his leave once more, he didn't seem to want to address that other 'little' matter of size: the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, which [I have it on the ideal authority] Mike went ahead and ordered from Martin Earl between 19th and 26th March, apparently imagining that it would be ideal for Anne to copy the draft of Maybrick's final year on this earth from their famous word 'prosser'."

5 June 2020 (#5175 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"we now know from Martin Earl himself that Mike was told what his enquiry had produced, yet he still went ahead and ordered the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page"

24 July 2020 (#137 of "Special Announcement"):

"Bongo did try to obtain one, yes, and when Martin Earl tracked down an example for him, he said yes please, Mr Earl, I would very much like you to order this fine specimen of Victorian diaryhood for me. With its bijou dimensions, together with its 3 or 4 printed dates to a page for the year 1891 - which I didn't actually ask for but no matter - and its distinct deficiency in blank pages - of which I distinctly recall stipulating a requirement of at least a score, but 'twill serve - this diminutive little fellow will make the ideal vehicle for my fake - er - genuine DAiry of a blackguard who expired two years before it was manufactured. Send the bill to my wife, if you would be so kind, as I am a trifle impecunious just now and only have the readies for my lunchtime pint."

5 August 2020 (#571 of "Special Announcement"):

"Mike Barrett "could have been" sceptical about Martin Earl's descriptive powers, thinking he meant to say it was a diary for 1888-9, of roughly A4 size, with at least 20 blank sides of paper, with no printed dates on any of them."

10 August 2020 (#5805 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"Never mind the fact that he ordered one for the year 1891, with 3 or 4 printed dates to a page [not just at the top], which did not have enough blank Victorian paper to wipe his late 20th century bottom on."

7 September 2020 (#6105 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"It was an article of faith that Mike had no idea what had been located for him until a useless pocket diary for 1891, with impossible dates printed on its tiny pages, arrived in the post with a bill for £25. "

7 September 2020 (#6108 of "One Incontrovertible"):

What Mike ordered was a 'small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book… 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank [apart from the printed dates] and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'.'

2 November 2021 #7391 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"Mike requested an unused or partially used diary for 1880-90, which couldn't be located, so instead he ordered a fully printed one for the year 1891, two years too late for anyone to claim it was Maybrick's."

22 June 2023 (#221 of "Who were they?"):

"the one he ordered and received was for the year 1891 and was very small indeed, with printed dates throughout."

29 June 2023 (#573 of "Who were they?"):

"Whoever found a diary for Mike for the year 1891, with printed dates throughout, didn't get the memo. Nor did Martin Earl, who offered it to Mike. More to the point, nor did Mike himself. He ordered the damned thing!"

5 July 2023 (#674 of "Who were they?"):

"She could have returned it whence it came, knowing that whatever Mike had asked for, in order to fake Maybrick's diary, it wasn't one for the year 1891, with printed dates throughout".

1 September 2023 (#10024 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"But Palmer doesn't think Martin Earl would have bothered to give Mike any details about its 'tiny size', or its printed dates on every page, despite Martin's stated business practice of giving his customers a full description of any item located, along with the asking price, before going ahead and ordering it on their behalf, to save wasting anyone's time, and the expense involved in postage to and fro?"

13 October 2023 (#10235 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"Along with Keith Skinner and others, I don't regard Mike's order in March 1992, for a tiny 1891 diary with 365 printed dates in it, as impeccable supporting evidence that he was planning to fake Maybrick's 1888/9 diary with it."

15 January 2024 (#10656 of "One Incontrovertible"):

"Martin Earl would have described the tiny red 1891 diary to Mike, with its printed dates throughout

14 February 2025 (#620 of "Old Hoax or New or not a Hoax at all"):

"he went ahead and ordered this 'too small' diary, which was not only three years too late for Maybrick's first entry, but had the days/dates printed on every tiny page."


CONCLUSIONS

What's notable is that in her second 7 September 2020 post, after reproducing Keith's "Nearly all of the pages are blank" comment, Caz felt the need to qualify this with her own words, "apart from the printed dates", which is basically an admission that Keith's "Nearly all the pages are blank" could have misled someone into thinking that there were no printed dates on the pages. Indeed, in a subsequent post dated 24 June 2021 (#6295 of "One Incontrovertible"), Caz wrote:" I think it may have been unintentionally misleading to say that nearly all of the pages are 'blank', because the dates from 1st Jan to 31st Dec 1891 are printed throughout the diary." We can also see that, astonishingly, she referred in her 24 July 2020 post to the diary's "distinct deficiency in blank pages" which makes no sense in the context of Keith Skinner himself saying that "nearly all" of the diary's pages are blank. Talk about confusion! Yet Michael Barrett is supposed to be the person who can't comprehend English.

What's also particularly interesting is how, from 2023, in most of her posts on the subject, she changes her wording of the description of the red diary from it having mere "printed dates" to it suddenly having "printed dates throughout", obviously attempting to align with Keith's "dated 1891 throughout", but, by improving upon what Keith had written, she was implicitly acknowledging that Keith's description was defective in that it was not sufficiently clear and needed improving.

Above all, we see clear evidence in her posts, especially those of 7 May 2020, 28 May 2020, 5 June 2020 and 15 January 2024, that she was claiming that Martin Earl would have told Mike in advance about the "printed" pages before he accepted the diary. I mean, she literally says in her 15 January 2024 post that Earl "would have" described the tiny diary to Mike "with its printed dates throughout", once again modifying Keith Skinner's own apparently defective description which used the word "throughout" but did not, of course, use the word "printed". In her 7 May 2020 post, she even, would you believe, quoted Earl in some fantastical imaginary dialogue as telling Mike that the diary had "dates printed on every page".

Finally, in case you're wondering, Ike. Did you ever do the same thing? Oh yes, you did. In an imaginary dialogue between a fictional Earl and a fictional Barrett, you posted on 4 July 2020 in #5461 of "One Incontrovertible":

"Earl: "Well this one isn’t exactly blank, Mr Barrett. As I said, it has the dates printed on every page – 1891, on every page, three or four times on each page.”

The interesting thing about this is that, despite the words "As I said", the fictional Earl had not, in fact, told the fictional Barrett that the dates were printed on every page earlier in the imaginary dialogue. What he'd done was read out verbatim Keith's Skinner's description of the red diary which didn't exist in March 1992 but which includes "Nearly all the pages are blank" (a statement which would appear to contradict the statement that the dates are printed on every page, as Caz acknowledged) plus "dated 1891 throughout" which date of 1891, to the extent anyone being told of this understood how its existence was consistent with nearly all the pages of the diary being blank, could, in theory, have been written in pencil by the owner at places throughout the diary, but not necessarily on every page.

To repeat my original point. There is no evidence or good reason to think that Mike was told by Martin Earl that there were 1891 dates printed on every page of the diary. Even Keith Skinner did not use the words "printed on every page" in his own full and detailed description of that diary which, unlike Earl's supplier, he wrote knowing its significance to Mike's claimed forgery plot. So it cannot possibly be claimed that Earl's supplier must have said that the dates were printed on every page of the diary in his own full description of the diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I love the way you have invented the need to 'think fast' and 'react immediately' and why the telephone call had to be 'brief'! Was Mr Earl in a hurry to save his 'phone bill, I wonder and - if so - how on earth did you find that little gem out?

You have made unsubstantiated claims in order to sway an argument your way. I hope that is clear to all of my dear readers (whose integrity is always uppermost in my mind).



For 'likely', dear readers, please read 'desirable'.



[... to someone with a specific scenario to paint ...]



Dear readers, you can't just decide something must have happened because - however implausible it may be - it conveniently fits your spin on things.



Yes, at that moment, through that source, it was the only one available, but Mike hadn't yet arranged a date for visiting Doreen. He could have turned the 1891 diary down and tried some other source. Yellow Pages was huge - bigger than Google probably. Indeed, that's exactly what he did do according to Orsam when he received the diary and realised what a chump he'd been to have not asked the obvious bloody question about the suitability of a diary for 1888 when it has been described as being from 1891.



That's not true, there was 'try somewhere else and put Doreen off until I've succeeded'.



Well, in your scenario he clearly DIDN'T have any reservations. In my scenario, there would be no need for any.



In your scenario, it's a desperately implausible option when there was a gloriously obvious one standing like an elephant in the middle of their conversation: just ask Mr Earl if it had 1891 printed on each page. If Mr Earl didn't know, just ask Mr Earl to ring the supplier and ask him or her. I appreciate that you think one or both of them was in some sort of a huge rush (see the start of this post), but he'd waited almost three weeks so far - what could 30 minutes have mattered if it avoided him wasting £66 (in today's money).



Or just asked about while he still had Mr Earl on the 'phone?



You mean the man who could have quickly rung the supplier and asked this simple question ("Quick question, Bob - does your 1891 diary have '1891' printed on every page?"). That would have saved Barrett having to get the scissors out, I'd say. I appreciate that Barrett was - how did you put it? - "having to think fast and react immediately during a brief telephone call" but how long does it take to ask, "Can you check if the year is printed on every page, please?".



Patently untrue.



It may not be difficult, but it's utterly implausible!

Last point: to my dear readers - how many of you think Sholmes will answer the first question I posed regarding the evidence he used to determine that one or both of Martin Earl and Michael Barrett were in a rush so Barrett had to think fast and react immediately during what needed to be a brief call?

Let's all remember that in 1992, people still talked to one another. They sent each other letters and issues got dealt with over aeons of time rather than seconds, and people were not desperate to stop the boring thing they were doing so that they could get back to wanking over their Facebook page because they got some new Likes.

What nonsense is this now, Ike?

Where did I ever say that Earl and Barrett were "in a rush"?

By definition it must have been relatively quick call. Earl's purpose was to inform Barrett that he had a diary available. He would have described the diary. That's it. Mike then would have had to respond. Either he wants the diary or he doesn't. He would have had to think fast, on his feet. Of course he did. He didn't have the luxury of 20 years of thinking about it, like you have.

For example, you used to query only why Mike wanted an 1890 diary within his 1880-1890 timeframe until I pointed out to you that 1889 was equally implausible if you're using a dated diary. You then changed to 1889 and 1890 but that was after literally years to think about it and after I'd drawn your attention to your failure of logic!

The short point is that it is nuts to say with hindsight, knowing what the red diary looked like, and with 20/20 hindsight vision, that Mike must have asked certain questions of Earl if he was genuinely attempting a forgery. No, he must not. Earl had never even seen the diary. So questions were pointless from the very start. But that assumes any questions had even occurred to Mike who'd likely been told that nearly all the pages in the diary were blank.

Despite seeming to agree with Roger about the futility of theorizing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that's all you seem to want to do. We do not and cannot know exactly what Earl said to Barrett and we do not and cannot exactly know how Barrett interpreted what he was being told. That's all there is.

I'm not making any positive point about the Earl/Barrett conversation or the red diary. You're the one who has been attempting to make a positive point based on no evidence and it has failed.

[caz]

Any attempt to equate Keith's known description with Earl's unknown description has limited value, Ike, and I think that's worth stressing even if it falls outside the limited scope of your on-going argument with Herlock. Your debate is somewhat akin to theorizing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, since we have no idea what was actually said by the Earl of Oxford.

And while I understand the pedantic "gotcha!" point you're trying to make, I already wrote a day or two ago, "I think what Herlock is suggesting is that if Earl had said something along the lines of "nearly all the pages are blank" (as Keith did) Barrett might have assumed that the pages had no print on them. In Keith's description he does say 'three or four dates to a page" but we don't know that Earl made a similar comment and even if he did, Barrett might have understood this to mean handwritten dates on blank paper."

Your insistence that Barrett couldn't reasonably assume that he meant handwritten dates on blank paper is based on your assumption that you and Barrett share the same strict definition of what a 'diary' is, but I don't think there is any reasonable reason to believe that. And if these were handwritten dates, that would mean (to Barret's mind) that other pages were entirely blank.

(We also have Yab's point to consider: that some memoranda books have blank pages in the back)

That's how I see it.

But I've said my piece and will stay out of it, as I have little interest in wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Cheers.

We don't know how the supplier described the 1891 diary, but we do know precisely what Mike received in the post. In 1995, he recalled it being 'very small' - not 'too' small, just 'very' small. It seems he had been expecting something considerably larger than two and a quarter inches by four, in which case he had agreed to purchase it without appreciating its actual size or thinking to ask, but simply making an assumption based on - what? Why was he having to assume anything about genuine Victorian diaries, when that's why he had contacted Martin Earl in the first place, and Mike had a very well-oiled tongue in his head?

If the size had been included in the written description given to Earl by the supplier, along with any reference to the number of days or dates to a page, why would Mike have 'reasonably' assumed these were handwritten dates, if nearly all the pages were otherwise blank? No diary entries beneath the dates? No notes to self? No appointments, no after-the-event remarks, no nothing - as if the owner had started each morning off by automatically writing the date by hand on a blank page in case, but then recorded nothing before the process was repeated the following morning, like Groundhog Day, but with a small but uniform space left between the dates? Even if Mike did assume this to be the case, he didn't need to assume anything at all. He could have asked Martin Earl all a Maybrick diary hoaxer might 'reasonably' have needed to know about the size, the usage and the 1891 date, without any suspicions being aroused. A blank book with only handwritten dates inside would not be a diary without any diary entries to make it one, and I think we all know that any fool could write 1889 or 1891 in a blank exercise book and it wouldn't prove anything about when they wrote it. It would not have helped a budding forger if he didn't know - and didn't think to ask - if he was being offered a diary that provably dated from 1891, or one where someone could have scribbled the year 1891 in the back of it in order to flog it to the unwary customer for £25.

The irony is that Mike is supposed to have known what he was doing and why he was doing it, and the wording of the advert, which included three impossible years if he was trying to obtain a diary manufactured before 1888 - 1888, 1889 and 1890 - is argued to be the proof of that, as if it matters not one jot what he agreed to purchase and why, when it was wrong in every possible aspect for the diary that was presented to Doreen on 13th April 1992. At the very least, it represents a degree of miscommunication between the three parties: Mike, Martin Earl and the supplier, and an even greater degree of unawareness on the part of the 'buyer' and budding forger, which requires some sort of explanation beyond him not having the intelligence of a goldfish, while displaying the same inability to speak, and follow up on his request in order to ascertain what exactly had been located as a result.

I wonder if Palmer has the same difficulty as Michael B2, in distinguishing the meaning of 'in theory' from 'in practice'. There is a whole world of difference between an 1891 diary which, in theory, could have been turned into Maybrick's IF it had been the physical opposite of the one sent to Michael B1, more by sheer luck than any realistic expectation on his part of it proving suitable, if he was happy with a vague description with no indication that the pages would be 'very small' - and if Ike's auntie could have held her own magnificent balls [thank you, Talbot Rothwell] - and what we know happened in practice.

Martin Earl told us that: 'Normally one would ask for payment with order so in this case it is likely that the customer specifically wanted to see it before sending payment.'

More for Michael B2's benefit than Palmer's, there was nothing there about a collector 'in a hurry' to receive an 1891 diary - after asking for one from the previous decade. It's 'likely' that Mike specifically wanted to see what had been located before paying for it. Earl was arguably more concerned, as a businessman, about making a quick sale, than whether his customer had a sudden need to add an 1891 diary to his collection. The advert only had to appear the once, on 19th March 1992, because the diary was located, described and snapped up within seven days, and posted off to Mike on 26th March. While Mike had been waiting since phoning his request, on 12th March at the latest according to Earl, he need not have known about the advert, or how quick the response had been.

Incidentally, we do know there was some communication between Mike and Doreen, almost certainly over the phone, before 3rd April, because by then he had revealed his real name to her, even though the scrapbook/guard book/photo album [pick your own favourite word for it and let the thought police bend themselves out of shape to make something of it] was supposedly only obtained on 31st March and took two days to dry out.

Earl was asked: 'When you were offered an item in response to an advert, would the supplier have given you a full description, and a photo perhaps?'

He replied: 'Always contacted customer to talk through an item and get agreement for me to purchase from supplier. Suppliers provided full descriptions and if needed one would go back to them for any additional info needed/asked for. No photos – Just written descriptions.'

This makes sense, because Earl would then have a written record of the description in case of a dispute, which would then be down to the supplier if an item was sent direct and had been misdescribed or not fully described. If Earl paid the supplier before getting payment from the buyer, as in Mike's case, he could expect a refund from the supplier on return of any such items. It would have been in his own interests to pass on the full description over the phone as soon as he had received it in writing, assuming the customer didn't have a fax machine.

Earl was asked if he would have described the diary to Mike, to make sure he was still interested in one for 1891, or if it was possible that he was entirely unaware that he was being sent a diary for that year until he actually saw it for himself.

Earl replied 'YES' to the first question and 'NO' to the second. He was also sent photos of the red diary as part of the email correspondence with him, so he could judge for himself what he would have considered to be a full written description. He knew from the photos what Mike had received and what had - eventually - been paid for, so he would have assumed it was close enough, even with all its printed dates, to what Mike had wanted and expected to see, regardless of the written description.

The item located for Mike is described inside the front cover, in large ornate letters, as an 'Indelible Diary', with the year 1891 printed clearly beneath.

These would have been obvious details to include in a full written description, and ought to have given Mike some idea of what to expect, even if he had to look up the word 'indelible' and assumed the year was only referred to once and wasn't as indelible as the diary itself claimed to be. Equally fine if the year had been added by hand - with no proof of when.

[Iconoclast]

Once again, Ike, as you seem to be having comprehension difficulties, Caz has already confirmed that an 1891 diary could have been used to, in your words, "create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts". The exact same must be true of an 1889 or 1890 diary. You haven't challenged Caz about this. Why not? Why don't you take it up with Caz?

I'm honestly stunned that you keep asking me this because 1) Caz is not my ******* wife who is actually the only person on the planet I answer to however scared of both of them I happen to be, and 2) I actually agreed with Caz many posts back that - in principle at least - an 1891 diary could be used for an 1888 diary (but it would obviously not be an actual 1891 diary with '1891' printed on every single page, clearly!).

As I've also said to you before, it is entirely possible that the actual "hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts" is contained within a 20th century photograph album.

I don't need you to tell me, thank you - that's blindingly obvious to everyone. It's either Victorian or it may be Edwardian. Don't be so full of your knowledge just because you think you know it all. Others can still know it all too.

As to that, Ike, has it never struck you as curious that the claim in Mike's affidavit is that he used an album which contained photographs which "were all to do with the 1914/1918 1st World War"? Does that not, in fact, conclusively prove that in Mike's mind it was entirely possible to create a fake 1888 Ripper diary using a book dated after 1888?

No, you're just trying to be clever and you're ******* it all up badly. A Victorian scrapbook - from 1888 or any other year Victoria was alive - could have obviously held photographs from World War 1. Where's the curiousness in that? Why do you assume that Barrett - in this scenario that patently didn't actually happen - was stupid enough to think like you are thinking? I don't know why I'm even entertaining this desperate stretching - it didn't happen!

After all, if he was lying, he could have said that the album contained photographs of Victorian gentlemen. But he didn't do that. He dated the album to long after the death of Maybrick.

He had a good month to think about what story he was going to tell after Gray had warned him during his hospital stay that they would need lots of detail when he came to write his affidavit. Being a brilliant author, he must have decided to say it held WW1 photographs (we know that because he actually said that). I think he came up with some tale about a photograph of a donkey at a grave too, if I recall correctly. Being a brilliant author (and freelance journalist), he must have figured telling the story that way would be even more believable to the gullible masses. Doesn't mean he assumed the scrapbook was not potentially or actually Victorian!

It's such a simple concept that an 1889, 1890 or 1891 diary could be used to create a fake 1888 diary that I refuse to believe you can't grasp it ...

See my earlier comment, I can believe it. In the general case, it's possible. Just not in this specific case where the customer was being told he was being offered an 1891 diary and he just makes a load of assumptions about whether it is suitable or not when he simply could have asked for clarification. We all know that Mike Barrett routinely acted stupidly, but exactly how stupid do you think he was just a few days before he wrote a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts which has kept us all arguing about its authenticity some 33 years later?

... and I can only assume that you're pretending not to be able to understand it because you fully realize the consequences for your daft argument if you were to admit it.

I think your argument fell apart at "you're pretending not to be able to understand it", don't you?

[Iconoclast]

What may be an "obvious" question to you in 2025, with perfect hindsight and 20 years to think about it, may not have been an "obvious" question to someone having to think fast and react immediately during a brief telephone call, especially if they know that the person they are speaking to can't answer any questions about the diary, not having seen it.

I love the way you have invented the need to 'think fast' and 'react immediately' and why the telephone call had to be 'brief'! Was Mr Earl in a hurry to save his 'phone bill, I wonder and - if so - how on earth did you find that little gem out?

You have made unsubstantiated claims in order to sway an argument your way. I hope that is clear to all of my dear readers (whose integrity is always uppermost in my mind).

If, as seems likely ...

For 'likely', dear readers, please read 'desirable'.

Mike had been told that nearly all the pages of the diary were blank, it seems entirely understandable ...

[... to someone with a specific scenario to paint ...]

... that he didn't question this but decided on the spot to take the diary.

Dear readers, you can't just decide something must have happened because - however implausible it may be - it conveniently fits your spin on things.

As I've said to you many times, Ike, the Victorian diary Mike was being offered was the only one available.

Yes, at that moment, through that source, it was the only one available, but Mike hadn't yet arranged a date for visiting Doreen. He could have turned the 1891 diary down and tried some other source. Yellow Pages was huge - bigger than Google probably. Indeed, that's exactly what he did do according to Orsam when he received the diary and realised what a chump he'd been to have not asked the obvious bloody question about the suitability of a diary for 1888 when it has been described as being from 1891.

It was that or nothing.

That's not true, there was 'try somewhere else and put Doreen off until I've succeeded'.

Even if Mike had reservations, he could easily have thought it was worth a gamble.

Well, in your scenario he clearly DIDN'T have any reservations. In my scenario, there would be no need for any.

Say "yes" and get the diary sent to hIm as soon as possible so he could start work immediately.

In your scenario, it's a desperately implausible option when there was a gloriously obvious one standing like an elephant in the middle of their conversation: just ask Mr Earl if it had 1891 printed on each page. If Mr Earl didn't know, just ask Mr Earl to ring the supplier and ask him or her. I appreciate that you think one or both of them was in some sort of a huge rush (see the start of this post), but he'd waited almost three weeks so far - what could 30 minutes have mattered if it avoided him wasting £66 (in today's money).

Evidence of 1891 could hopefully be cut out.

Or just asked about while he still had Mr Earl on the 'phone?

Perhaps pages could be trimmed. Who knows? Certainly not Earl ...

You mean the man who could have quickly rung the supplier and asked this simple question ("Quick question, Bob - does your 1891 diary have '1891' printed on every page?"). That would have saved Barrett having to get the scissors out, I'd say. I appreciate that Barrett was - how did you put it? - "having to think fast and react immediately during a brief telephone call" but how long does it take to ask, "Can you check if the year is printed on every page, please?".

... and Mike wasn't going to be able to find out unless he had the diary in front of him.

Patently untrue.

It really isn't all that difficult.

It may not be difficult, but it's utterly implausible!

Last point: to my dear readers - how many of you think Sholmes will answer the first question I posed regarding the evidence he used to determine that one or both of Martin Earl and Michael Barrett were in a rush so Barrett had to think fast and react immediately during what needed to be a brief call?

Let's all remember that in 1992, people still talked to one another. They sent each other letters and issues got dealt with over aeons of time rather than seconds, and people were not desperate to stop the boring thing they were doing so that they could get back to wanking over their Facebook page because they got some new Likes.

[Iconoclast]

Will you ever say anything accurate relating to this case, Ike?
"Mike Barrett wanted an 1889.or 1890 diary and accepted an 1890 one".
Where has that come from? He wanted a diary from 1880 to 1890. Why is reality not good enough for you that you have to change the facts to something you like better?
Only a few posts ago you seemed to accept that we can't know how the diary was described to Mike over the phone, but now you're back to claiming to know what must have been said! Please try and make your mind up.

You said the other day that I seemed to be an intelligent enough person. Perhaps foolishly, I assumed the same of you. Now, I know I'm extremely intelligent - way beyond your average, I humbly put to you. Because I assume other posters are also very intelligent, I often skip things that are irrelevant in order to stress the point I am seeking to make. So, Mike's request for a diary from 1880 to 1888 is fine with me - that all makes sense and any diary from that period could have been used by James Maybrick in 1888 (and even the early part of 1889 before he expired).

So that's why I focused in on 1889 and 1890 and the fact he accepted one from 1891 (you got that last bit wrong, exquisitely - I thought you were being ironic for a moment) because they are the problematic parts of his ad and his subsequent acceptance. Surely to God that was obvious, dear readers, even if it wasn't to know-it-all-Holmes?

Do I give you too much credit and should I spell everything out in great detail every time I post in case you can't cope with a little bit of logic?

[Iconoclast]

The only person making inaccurate statements is you, Ike. For I never said that Keith Skinner didn't say something which he actually did say. You have gloriously misunderstood a post I made, taking it as a criticism of Skinner which it never was. Please stop and think for a moment and use your critical faculties to work out what I was actually saying in my original post.

You are wrong. Re-read what has been written.

Just what we were all expecting!

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong