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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can doesn't have to answer to or agree with me. I don't need to answer to or agree with her. In the same way, neither of us has to answer to or agree with you, et cetera. It seems to be a trick the likes of you, Orsam, and RJ love to play - comparing content from different posters as though that alters the validity of them.



Good God, man, I'm confident that neither Caz nor I care. I'm not sure if I even remember what the question was!



I'm sure that we agree many houses are made of bricks - not all 'agreement' means two people are aligned in any meaningful way.



Another Orsam/RJ/Sholmes favourite trick - eek out every last nuance from a statement and seek to find the error or the non sequitur in order to undermine the post. I accept that something is possible but I really seriously doubt it actually happened. I accept that a white horse called Billy could have trotted through our garden around 4am this morning but I don't accept that it happened. Nitpicking around semantics is a classic Barrett-Believer tactic and I'm amazed at how swiftly you have become the leader of that gang.



If I got up in the morning and found hoof prints across my garden, I'd be more inclined to believe that something I previously thought possible but implausible might actually be more plausible than I'd initially thought. If a reliable witness - say the local GP - had said they had driven past our house around 4am and seen a white horse trotting through our garden, I'd really start to think the possible was plausible. If I had investigated all of the nooks and crannies of our large garden and found a white horse in amongst the trees, I'd really seriously think the possible was very plausible indeed. I'd still want confirmation that its name was Billy, mind. That's a joke before the Barrett-Believers jump on it as an admission of my 'impossible standards' or whatever.

So I think the Barrett claims are implausible because the evidence suggests the scrapbook is consistent with 1888 and that the scratches in the watch were many decades old even in 1993 coupled with the lack of any reliable evidence of the Barretts having any role in the orchestration of a hoax bar Mike's drunken, vengeful mutterings causes me huge hesitation whenever someone puts it to me that the people for whom there is not a scrap of evidence they created a hoax created a hoax. I'm far more circumspect than that. But - at least - I'll agree with you that it is plausible that they were indeed called Mike and Anne Barrett.

To give you a full and proper answer to your very casual question would give me cause to write a book on the subject and this I may well do. But first, I must start my day's work ...

Ike, you asked me a question which suggested it was ridiculous for anyone to say that it was impossible that the Barretts were the forgers, and I told you that this is what Caz seems to be saying. I've no idea why you think my reply was a "trick". I was simply answering your question

Saying "the evidence suggests the scrapbook is consistent with 1888" has nothing to do with whether it's plausible or implausible that the Barretts could have created it. As a matter of fact, the evidence is wholly inconsistent with an 1888 creation. Indeed, it disproves an 1888 creation. It also dates the diary to the very period in which the Barretts could have created it..

What the watch has to do with the creation of the diary, I've no idea. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to date a scratch but that's a completely different issue.

And the "lack of reliable evidence" as you put it, can't possibly have any bearing on whether it's plausible to say that the Barretts could have created it. You are so obviously floundering over this question that one can only conclude that you realise very well that it would be nonsensical to say that a Barrett creation is implausible. You might strongly disagree that they did it, but it can't be said to be implausible.

[Iconoclast]

"How could that not be possible?" Well, that's what I thought I was being told by Caz, Ike. She seemed to be saying they weren't capable of doing it, hence it's not possible for them to have done it.

Can doesn't have to answer to or agree with me. I don't need to answer to or agree with her. In the same way, neither of us has to answer to or agree with you, et cetera. It seems to be a trick the likes of you, Orsam, and RJ love to play - comparing content from different posters as though that alters the validity of them.

So you'll have to address your question to Caz, if you're serious about wanting an answer.

Good God, man, I'm confident that neither Caz nor I care. I'm not sure if I even remember what the question was!

Now that we both agree it's possible ...

I'm sure that we agree many houses are made of bricks - not all 'agreement' means two people are aligned in any meaningful way.

... (even though, in some contradiction to this, you then go on to say that you don't accept the possibility!!!)

Another Orsam/RJ/Sholmes favourite trick - eek out every last nuance from a statement and seek to find the error or the non sequitur in order to undermine the post. I accept that something is possible but I really seriously doubt it actually happened. I accept that a white horse called Billy could have trotted through our garden around 4am this morning but I don't accept that it happened. Nitpicking around semantics is a classic Barrett-Believer tactic and I'm amazed at how swiftly you have become the leader of that gang.

... perhaps you will care to explain to me why you seem to be saying it's not plausible. What's so implausible about it?

If I got up in the morning and found hoof prints across my garden, I'd be more inclined to believe that something I previously thought possible but implausible might actually be more plausible than I'd initially thought. If a reliable witness - say the local GP - had said they had driven past our house around 4am and seen a white horse trotting through our garden, I'd really start to think the possible was plausible. If I had investigated all of the nooks and crannies of our large garden and found a white horse in amongst the trees, I'd really seriously think the possible was very plausible indeed. I'd still want confirmation that its name was Billy, mind. That's a joke before the Barrett-Believers jump on it as an admission of my 'impossible standards' or whatever.

So I think the Barrett claims are implausible because the evidence suggests the scrapbook is consistent with 1888 and that the scratches in the watch were many decades old even in 1993 coupled with the lack of any reliable evidence of the Barretts having any role in the orchestration of a hoax bar Mike's drunken, vengeful mutterings causes me huge hesitation whenever someone puts it to me that the people for whom there is not a scrap of evidence they created a hoax created a hoax. I'm far more circumspect than that. But - at least - I'll agree with you that it is plausible that they were indeed called Mike and Anne Barrett.

To give you a full and proper answer to your very casual question would give me cause to write a book on the subject and this I may well do. But first, I must start my day's work ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it is possible the Barretts hoaxed the scrapbook. How could that not be possible? I'm not concerned about what is possible, I'm concerned about what is plausible. The fact that I don't accept this possibility for one moment ought to give you a sense that maybe the odds are heavily stacked against it in my mind.

"How could that not be possible?" Well, that's what I thought I was being told by Caz, Ike. She seemed to be saying they weren't capable of doing it, hence it's not possible for them to have done it.

So you'll have to address your question to Caz, if you're serious about wanting an answer.

Now that we both agree it's possible (even though, in some contradiction to this, you then go on to say that you don't accept the possibility!!!), perhaps you will care to explain to me why you seem to be saying it's not plausible.

What's so implausible about it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've honestly started to mirror RJ's style of spinning stuff - you're a real convert!

How is saying, "You seem to be terribly keen not to consider what he said in 1999", an example of me (or anyone) "spinning" anything Ike? It's just an observation, isn't it?

[Iconoclast]

But if you are accepting that it's possible that the Barretts forged the diary then I'm not sure there's really any need to continue this discussion, as we both agree. If so, I'm very glad to hear

Yes, it is possible the Barretts hoaxed the scrapbook. How could that not be possible? I'm not concerned about what is possible, I'm concerned about what is plausible. The fact that I don't accept this possibility for one moment ought to give you a sense that maybe the odds are heavily stacked against it in my mind.

[Iconoclast]

You seem to be terribly keen not to consider what he said in 1999.

You've honestly started to mirror RJ's style of spinning stuff - you're a real convert!

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as I know, science is supposed to be done blind. You’re not supposed to know who supposedly wrote the document before you assess it. And no one should totally accept the verdict when it’s given by someone who didn’t follow that rule. They knew it was a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper. Why would I name-drop the names of these experts even if they were right.

One didn’t know about Nigrosine and both didn’t know or consider what effect being sealed in an air-tight container might have a century old document.

If you’re not going into the study blind, you better go into it with your glasses on and make sure you see everything. And of course, still be objective. At least, try!

In your mind, Lombro, how do you think it would be physically possible for an expert document examiner to examine the original diary, as Dr Baxendale was asked to do, without them knowing it was supposed to have been written a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper?

[Lombro2]

As far as I know, science is supposed to be done blind. You’re not supposed to know who supposedly wrote the document before you assess it. And no one should totally accept the verdict when it’s given by someone who didn’t follow that rule. They knew it was a business man saying he was Jack the Ripper. Why would I name-drop the names of these experts even if they were right.

One didn’t know about Nigrosine and both didn’t know or consider what effect being sealed in an air-tight container might have a century old document.

If you’re not going into the study blind, you better go into it with your glasses on and make sure you see everything. And of course, still be objective. At least, try!

[Herlock Sholmes]

And those 'experts' are never wrong! [Thank you, Lord Roper.]

I'm pretty sure flat earthers say exactly the same thing about experts on a regular basis, Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

It goes to his general character and to the fact he was clearly pissed. It therefore adds a great deal to our assessment of the value we place on his words at the event.

You know this, though. You must know this.

But I'm not disputing he was drunk. What does that have to do with it? You keep wanting to talk about his affidavit even though he was almost certainly drunk when he signed it.

Being drunk in 1999, it makes it all the more remarkable that he seems to have been telling a consistent and coherent story about how the diary was created. As you know, that's Orsam's main observation in the article of his you directed me to. It strikes me as a good one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened. Lots of things could happen but generally speaking they are evidenced somewhere in the record (and not simply claimed over and over again by drunk men). It's just a terrible shame that Mike Barrett's claims were so frequently contradicted by himself that it is literally impossible to trust an unproven word he ever said.

Remember, this is the guy who said he got rid of all the evidence but oft-times claimed he still had it. He gave it to his sister and she disposed of it, apparently. Except she says she didn't.

In amongst all of the lies and the drinking, you feel that there must be a kernel of truth going on and the truth you are clinging to is simply so extraordinary that it requires actual evidence which Mike Barrett singularly failed to ever produce.

Not once.

When you say "I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened" I think you've been reading different posts to the ones I've been reading in this thread, Ike. But, well, I now look forward to Caz telling me that the Barretts could, indeed, have forged the diary. Because I thought that was the very thing she's been telling me could not have happened. Perhaps I've misunderstood her.

And let me be very clear. All I'm saying is that I can't see why the Barretts couldn't be the forgers. I don't rely on anything that Barrett said "amongst all the likes and the drinking". I know that the diary is a modern forgery. I wonder how it got into the hands of the Barretts. I note that Barrett sought a genuine Victorian diary from the decade of the Ripper murders with blank pages. I note that his wife lied about why he did so. Getting hold of such a diary is something I would only expect a prospective forger to have done. So I can't see why the Barretts aren't obvious candidates for forging the diary. Despite this very straightforward and logical approach to the subject, it seems to be controversial for some reason.

But if you are accepting that it's possible that the Barretts forged the diary then I'm not sure there's really any need to continue this discussion, as we both agree. If so, I'm very glad to hear

[Herlock Sholmes]

Goodness me, a drunken man signs an affidavit and a drunken man gives a first hand account of his forgery at a meeting, and that's good enough for you.

Some people might set a slightly higher standard of evidence.

Just saying.

You've said it yourself, Ike. All we know he did in 1995 is sign his name to a document prepared by someone else. Whereas in 1999 he actually spoke the words, So shouldn't we focus on his words?

You seem to be terribly keen not to consider what he said in 1999.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks Roger. On checking what Dr. Nickell had to say, I see he wrote in his book:
"Actually, the paper is from the right period, but the ink was clearly applied this century - probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests".
And he was an expert on forgeries.

And those 'experts' are never wrong! [Thank you, Lord Roper.]

[Iconoclast]

Let me ask this. How is Barrett threatening an audience member in any way relevant to the story of how he created the diary? Why not focus on what is important, Ike, rather than going down all these silly side roads?

It goes to his general character and to the fact he was clearly pissed. It therefore adds a great deal to our assessment of the value we place on his words at the event.

You know this, though. You must know this.

[Iconoclast]

I'm waiting patiently for someone to tell me. But no-one ever does.

I don't think anyone is saying that this couldn't have happened. Lots of things could happen but generally speaking they are evidenced somewhere in the record (and not simply claimed over and over again by drunk men). It's just a terrible shame that Mike Barrett's claims were so frequently contradicted by himself that it is literally impossible to trust an unproven word he ever said.

Remember, this is the guy who said he got rid of all the evidence but oft-times claimed he still had it. He gave it to his sister and she disposed of it, apparently. Except she says she didn't.

In amongst all of the lies and the drinking, you feel that there must be a kernel of truth going on and the truth you are clinging to is simply so extraordinary that it requires actual evidence which Mike Barrett singularly failed to ever produce.

Not once.