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

[Iconoclast]

Well, if me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle, Yabs.

We can do this Dance of the Possible forever if you want, it won't alter the fact that Mike Barrett wanted an 1889 or 1890 diary and accepted an 1891 one. Nor will it alter the fact that neither the supplier nor Martin Earl had any reason to think there might be a need to clarify if there were dates on every page but that there was a world of reasons for Mike Barrett to do so if he was intending to write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts into it. The supplier's ignorance of Mike's intent and Martin Earl's ignorance of Mike's intent does not therefore become - under any circumstances, however obscure to entertain - Mike's failure to remember his intent.

And if I ordered a pen as ambiguously as your fictional idiot did, I'd be too embarrassed to send it back as I hate it when people call me a complete ******* twat. Maybe you'd care somewhat less than I?

[Iconoclast]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.

I wouldn't put it past HS if he couldn't think of any other way to avoid saying, "Yep, I was wrong".

He said Keith Skinner didn't say something when we can all see that he did, so HS has to find another way to be right so he shifts my point on to the supplier not saying X about Y to Z when my point was simply to say he was jolly well wrong to say that KS did not say what KS most obviously did say.

Obviously, the words weren't exactly the same, Your Honour, so Keith clearly did NOT say what it's rather blindingly obvious to everyone who doesn't live in Pedantville he clearly meant. But let's talk about what the supplier did or didn't say instead because that will give me a route out of the psychological nightmare I experience when I realise I've been caught with my pants down!

[Iconoclast]

Stop obsessing over insignificant trivia.

I wonder if Keith Skinner would feel I was teasing over insignificant trivia if he happened to notice that you had sent the pedant police 'round because he hadn't quite phrased something the way you seemed to feel he should have phrased it.

Look, I'm not interested in your counting angels on pinheads or your arguing over me auntie's gonads - it's just something we have all now noticed you do to avoid saying, "Oops, I was wrong. Mea culpa".

Your arguments become more compelling if people feel you could handle being in error. You clearly can't handle it so you have to subtly change the point so that it all looks as though everything is going to plan (as Putin loved to say until not even Putin could bring himself to believe it).

You were caught with your pants down, man. Just own it. Even Rj in his late 90s knows when he's dropped a clanger.

[Iconoclast]

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.

I couldn't agree with you more, RJ. I've said my piece too. Whether it's counting angels on the head of a pin or wondering if me auntie's gonads are actually testicles, none of it provides us with any helpful movement towards answers or - God forbid - the truth.

I would note further though that claiming X could have done E, J, M, R, T, and V to achieve Y is simply an alphabet soup of contrivance and implausibility.

Mike Barrett could have gone to the Moon and back to source his 'hoaxed' scrapbook, we'll just never know either way with any certainty.

Just saying.

[Yabs]

I think Herlock has already explained that the diary could only be returned if not as described.

For example if I ordered a red coloured pen on a similar basis I could have been sent either of these items, both fit my request for a red pen except the one on the right has blue ink.
If I required one with red ink it would have been down to me to be more specific in my request.
Hindsight is everything.




Also.. would Barrett ask if the pages are dated if being told they are blank as requested?
I’m sure he was informed it was an 1891 diary as that leaves room for returns if not properly described, but to Barretts mind that’s not a problem if most of the pages are described as blank.
The blank paper dating to that time period is the aspect that was of importance to Barrett, it’s not like he wasn’t prepared to make adjustments and remove dates/pages from the front of the book.

[Lombro2]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're either not keeping up, RJ, or you are being deliberately evasive.

What I was doing was pointing out that what Herlock said Keith had NOT said was actually pretty much EXACTLY what he did say. This has nothing to do with Martin Earl or anyone else. This was about a poster making a claim about what someone did NOT say when - unless the pedant police have lost their cell keys - no-one could possibly be drawing that conclusion.

• Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page".
• Keith actually stated, "dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page".

Are you claiming to be that guy who says the words weren't the same therefore neither was the sentiment everyone else understood from them?

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

"Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page"."

Now you're misremembering what I said. I was very careful with what I posted in my #1401. It was this:

"a "full description" of the diary doesn't include the words "the date printed on every page". If you don't believe me, why don't you just ask Keith Skinner? Because he wrote a very full and detailed description of the 1891 diary which did not include those words!"

What I said was entirely accurate. Keith's description does not, and never has, included the words "the dates are printed every page".

The point I was making was that even though Keith was fully aware of the significance of the 1891 diary, he didn't use the word "printed". Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to think that Earl's supplier didn't use the word "printed".

It doesn't work the other way, though, Ike. We can't say that because Keith said that it was "dated 1891 throughout" this means Earl's supplier used those words or similar. This would be the case even if Keith didn't know of the significance of the red diary to the forgery claim when he wrote his description because no two descriptions by two different people for two different purposes could be expected to be exactly the same. But, of course, Keith wasaware of the significance of the red diary to the forgery claim. So his own description, written, as Roger has said, with hindsight, is irrelevant to the question of what Mike was told.

Keith's "sentiment" is equally irrelevant.

Stop obsessing over insignificant trivia.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would ask you what Keith could possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ but you won’t give the answer that everyone else would give because that’s not where your argument is going.

That said, what could Keith possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ if NOT ‘printed on every page’?

What does it matter what Keith meant?

[rjpalmer]

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

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.

[Iconoclast]

You're confusing an ex post facto description given by a fully cognizant observer (Keith) with an unknown one given by a man who was mainly in the dark (Martin Earl).Cheers.

You're either not keeping up, RJ, or you are being deliberately evasive.

What I was doing was pointing out that what Herlock said Keith had NOT said was actually pretty much EXACTLY what he did say. This has nothing to do with Martin Earl or anyone else. This was about a poster making a claim about what someone did NOT say when - unless the pedant police have lost their cell keys - no-one could possibly be drawing that conclusion.

• Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page".
• Keith actually stated, "dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page".

Are you claiming to be that guy who says the words weren't the same therefore neither was the sentiment everyone else understood from them?

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

I would ask you what Keith could possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ but you won’t give the answer that everyone else would give because that’s not where your argument is going.

It's already been asked and answered, Ike, but isn't it extremely relevant to point out that---unlike Martin Earl---Keith gave his description of the maroon diary knowing that Barrett had presented the world with a sensational document purporting to be from 1888-1889 and thus much hinged on whether the diary was "dated 1891 throughout"?

Hindsight is 20/20.

There is no evidence that Earl had seen this diary--he was passing along information from a third party--and, although he would certainly have informed Barrett that the diary was from 1891, he couldn't have known Barrett's intention was to forge a diary from 1888-1889 so he would hardly have thought to warn Barrett of its unsuitability for this purpose!!!


And it is even less likely that Earl would stress printed dates considering that Barrett gave him an eleven-year range of acceptable years, 1880-1890, so specific dating hadn't been requested or stressed. As long as the diary was in the ballpark and more or less blank, Earl would have assumed it met Barrett's needs and not given any particular thought to the dates being repeated "throughout."

You're confusing an ex post facto description given by a fully cognizant observer (Keith) with an unknown one given by a man who was mainly in the dark (Martin Earl).

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

I would ask you what Keith could possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ but you won’t give the answer that everyone else would give because that’s not where your argument is going.

That said, what could Keith possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ if NOT ‘printed on every page’?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Keith did write (as far as I can tell from Caz's post on the Incontrovertible thread which you directed us all to):

'...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'.



I'm struggling to understand why what Keith wrote is not effectively the same as what you said he didn't write. I think a lot of my dear readers will be similarly perplexed by this.

I know he did, Ike. But he didn't say that 1891 was printed on every page.

And, of course, Keith Skinner's description of the diary wasn't what was read to Mike Barrett.

As I said, when Keith Skinner wrote his description, he was fully aware of the significance of the 1891 diary in respect of Mike's forgery claim. So he highlighted what he thought was important. Martin Earl's supplier wouldn't have been similarly aware and would have had different priorities.

Have you noticed that Keith didn't think to mention the colour of the diary in his description? Nor did he include anything about the condition of the diary, something which would surely have been a priority for Earl's supplier. Also, nothing is said about the font colour of the print in the diary. Why? No doubt because that doesn't seem to be relevant but if someone had particularly wanted a diary with the dates in a blue font colour it would have been important.

When I wrote my own supplier description, at your suggestion, in the invented dialogue, I described it as an: "1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book... four days to a page." That is very similar to what Keith wrote but even more ambiguous, yet it could easily have been what Earl's supplier said in his own description, not understanding that, for Mike, the pages needed to be literally blank with nothing at all on them.

Keith also said in his description that: "Nearly all of the pages are blank". So he regarded the pages in your image as blank. Are those pages blank or are they not blank? Different people could answer that question differently. It's a matter of perspective and shows how the same words could potentially mean different things to different people, especially if they hold different beliefs as to what a historical diary looks

[Iconoclast]

I have made this post as others have asked for a lengthier post from me explaining my position. Although frankly it was a bit of a chore and I'm expecting some to try and shoot down the post.

It absolutely comes with the territory - when you post, your post will get deconstructed by someone because they may not agree with the premises which underpin your conclusion.

[John Wheat]

The Diary wasn't written by James Maybrick most notably because it contains the phrase one off which was not in use in 1888.

It is clear to all but a few that Anne and Mike Barrett wrote the diary because Mike Barrett admitted to being one of the writers of the Diary. Also it is noteworthy that the writing bears a significant resemblance to Anne's writing although it is clear she has attempted to disguise the handwriting. I believe there is currently a discussion on JTR Forums about this. Also Mike Barrett was looking for Victorian Diary's and it is obvious he was doing this because he wanted to create the fake diary.

I have made this post as others have asked for a lengthier post from me explaining my position. Although frankly it was a bit of a chore and I'm expecting some to try and shoot down the post.