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

[rjpalmer]

Now that you've joined in this conversation, how do you account for Tim saying that his employee saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub?

I was about to ask the same question. The Diary Friendly Folks (as I prefer to call them) have made much of certain informants referring to 'the [old] book,' but there doesn't appear to be similar interest in Dodgson referring to a 'copy' of Jack the Ripper's diary.

Surely this wording greatly interested Feldman who pricked up his ears and repeated it twice.

What the heck did TMW's employee mean by 'copy'? Where and when could a 'copy' of the diary have been in circulation in the pubs of Liverpool? Why would anyone who had seen Mike's "old book" have referred to it as a 'copy'?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may have been slightly more than a matter of pure maths and a Christmas past, Herlock, on account of when Tim's birthday is. Most people are able to pinpoint a specific event in their lives to within a couple of months of their birthday, if they keep a basic appointments diary every year and are able to cast their minds back to how they celebrated their special day in any particular year. They can also seek confirmation using a variety of other resources, human or documented.

Without knowing what other information was available to jog, correct or confirm an individual's personal memories, you can't be dogmatic about the limitations of their powers of recall.

Consistency with other people's memories of the same event or conversation is a bonus and not to be sniffed at. It doesn't always indicate a conspiracy and, in this case, an unlikely one between people who didn't all know one another, or have personal or professional associations in common.

I don't know if you missed it Caz but I set out all the known accounts of the story in my #1915 and at no time is the Incident linked in any way to Tim's birthday, whenever that may be. He presumably knows the exact date of his birthday but when he first told the story he placed it within a six month date range. How do you explain that?

Even in one of his later accounts it was in a two month period. This strongly suggests that there is nothing about the story which relates to his birthday and he surely wouldn't need an appointments diary to remind him when his birthday was.

Now that you've joined in this conversation, how do you account for Tim saying that his employee saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub?

I think I already told you that I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, just an understandable failure to recollect the date an incident occurred. As far as I'm aware, only Tim and Dodgson (but not Davies) have suggested a 1992 date for this conversation but it wouldn't be in any way surprising if they discussed this with each other.

Given the importance you attach to this incident, would it not be good idea to produce the entire transcript of Tim's 1994 conversation with Feldman, the full note of Tim' 2004 conversation with Keith and any transcripts of interviews with Dodgson and Davies?

[caz]

It may have been slightly more than a matter of pure maths and a Christmas past, Herlock, on account of when Tim's birthday is. Most people are able to pinpoint a specific event in their lives to within a couple of months of their birthday, if they keep a basic appointments diary every year and are able to cast their minds back to how they celebrated their special day in any particular year. They can also seek confirmation using a variety of other resources, human or documented.

Without knowing what other information was available to jog, correct or confirm an individual's personal memories, you can't be dogmatic about the limitations of their powers of recall.

Consistency with other people's memories of the same event or conversation is a bonus and not to be sniffed at. It doesn't always indicate a conspiracy and, in this case, an unlikely one between people who didn't all know one another, or have personal or professional associations in common.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a second hand report related to a third person around Christmas 1992.

It tells us nothing about when the original event happened.

Unfortunately for you, Mr Hopelessly Confused (
or more like Mr Hopelessly Trying To Confuse), it probably happened March 9, 1992.

The only reason why Christmas 1992 was mentioned in one of the varying accounts is due to pure mathematics, because it was two months after the APS store opened (assuming it opened on 26th October 1992 as claimed) and Tim and Dodgson both said that they thought that they were told about the diary a month or two after that opening. There is nothing in the story, in other words, which suggests that it did in fact occur at Christmas, just a recollection that it happened soon after the APS Bootle store opened. But you've ignored the fact that the story told by Tim in 1994 didn't involve the APS Bootle store at all. It involved a pub.

As for the "original event", yes Mike Barrett is known to have telephoned Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992. That, as far as we know, is the original event in this story. Then the next thing he did was seek out a Victorian diary with blank pages

[Lombro2]

It was a second hand report related to a third person around Christmas 1992.

It tells us nothing about when the original event happened.

Unfortunately for you, Mr Hopelessly Confused (
or more like Mr Hopelessly Trying To Confuse), it probably happened March 9, 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it's that he works through you.

That ludicrous statement says far more about you, Scott, than it does about me.

[Scott Nelson]

No, it's that he works through you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't worry, I'm probably safe. See the influence that Barrat has?

Are you attempting a world record of mentioning Barrat/Orsam in every single post you make even though he hasn't been a member of this forum for about the last five years?

He really must have got to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most telling thing is what the amigos are pointing out—that it was said that Davies saw a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper.

That can only be for one reason—he was unwilling to say he saw the real thing, because he suspected they were stealing a valuable original artifact and he was an accessory to the crime.

Plausible deniability again. Everything else is cherry-picking.

Lombro, you are, as ever, hopelessly confused.

Davies never said anything about seeing a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper. At least not in any evidence which has been revealed to us. That's the whole point.

It was supposedly Dodgson (TMW's employee) who told TMW about having himself personally seen a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper in a pub.

And if the incident occurred in December 1992, as you claim, there is zero possibility of it having been the original for obvious reasons.

So it's back to the drawing board for you with that one.

Mind you, it's not entirely your fault. Most of the evidence relating to the Davies/Dodgson conversation is being withheld. I'm kind of surprised that you don't mind being kept in the dark. If I was in your position, I would surely want all the evidence relating to this incident made publicly available because it's supposed to be strong evidence that the diary was found in Battlecrease. For some strange reason the direct opposite is true and most of the evidence is hidden. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't.

[Scott Nelson]

You mean the guy who calls Caz the “Chief Diary Defender” when she’s not defending the diary?

Yes, San Fran. I never understand what was meant by a "diary defender" because I couldn't get a coherent answer from anybody.

[Lombro2]

I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. Theoretically.

The dragon is in the details. That’s why I like to drag it on and on.

[Lombro2]

You mean the guy who calls Caz the “Chief Diary Defender” when she’s not defending the diary?

And of course, he and the two amigos “proved the diarist a fake!” and so it was faked by Barrett although you don’t think it matters who did it as long as you don’t say so-and-so didn’t because,
you know, it doesn’t matter.

And nobody knows who Jack the Ripper was so you can’t say who he is. You can only say who he isn’t.

No-one knows nothing.

[Scott Nelson]

Don't worry, I'm probably safe. See the influence that Barrat has?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how about……..ME. In the JFK thread in March of 2023

“and I mean no-one could have been that colossally, humongously, earth-shatteringly STUPID.“

And before you make another false accusation…in the quote above I was talking about an imagined group of people plotting to murder JFK and not a poster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or TAB in the Election thread.

“No-one is disagreeing with this, not a single person.”