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

[Iconoclast]

Lombro, I have to ask: have you actually been reading my posts or are you just guessing at what I've said?
Nowhere I have stated about the red diary that Martin Earl or his supplier "may not have described it fully or clearly". In fact, I've said the very opposite. They did provide a full description of the diary.
Just look at my #1401 for proof of this. In that post I wrote:
"The unknown supplier of the diary undoubtedly did provide a full description of the 1891 diary."
The point is that a full description of the 1891 did not need include the words "the dates are printed on every page", just like a description of any book sold by Martin Earl would undoubtedly not have included the description "there are words printed on every page".
Good evidence of this is found in the fact that Keith Skinner wrote a full and detailed description of the red diary which did not include the words "the dates are printed on every page", even though, unlike Martin Earl's supplier, he was fully aware of the significance of that diary to Mike's forgery claims.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But then they received it in the mail.

You must think nobody understands or is attentive. That way you can talk over them and sound convincing.

Yes, Lombro, the 1891 diary was, indeed, sent to 12 Goldie Street in the post. Well done for working that out.

[Lombro2]

But then they received it in the mail.

You must think nobody understands or is attentive. That way you can talk over them and sound convincing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

First you say that they had to pay for the red diary because it was "as described". Then you say they may not have described it fully or clearly, but they still had to pay for it.

They couldn't send it back when it had 1891 on every page, whether or not "as described", and was "useless" in your estimation? That is the only possible reason for them to keep it?

Caz, are you agreeing with them that they had to pay for the diary because "buyer beware" of misunderstandings? This must be the first time you agree with them then. They must be happy after all those drubbings.

Lombro, I have to ask: have you actually been reading my posts or are you just guessing at what I've said?

Nowhere I have stated about the red diary that Martin Earl or his supplier "may not have described it fully or clearly". In fact, I've said the very opposite. They did provide a full description of the diary.

Just look at my #1401 for proof of this. In that post I wrote:

"The unknown supplier of the diary undoubtedly did provide a full description of the 1891 diary."

The point is that a full description of the 1891 did not need include the words "the dates are printed on every page", just like a description of any book sold by Martin Earl would undoubtedly not have included the description "there are words printed on every page".

Good evidence of this is found in the fact that Keith Skinner wrote a full and detailed description of the red diary which did not include the words "the dates are printed on every page", even though, unlike Martin Earl's supplier, he was fully aware of the significance of that diary to Mike's forgery claims.

Nowhere have I said that the red diary was useless. It wasn't, but it was useless for the purposes of forging an 1888 Jack the Ripper diary. That's not something which Mike could have complained about.

What Caz has accepted is something different, namely that an 1891 diary could, in theory, have been used to create an 1888 Jack the Ripper diary.

[Lombro2]

First you say that they had to pay for the red diary because it was "as described". Then you say they may not have described it fully or clearly, but they still had to pay for it.

They couldn't send it back when it had 1891 on every page, whether or not "as described", and was "useless" in your estimation? That is the only possible reason for them to keep it?

Caz, are you agreeing with them that they had to pay for the diary because "buyer beware" of misunderstandings? This must be the first time you agree with them then. They must be happy after all those drubbings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here! Let me help you make it make sense?

”We got the 1891 Diary and knew right away, it wouldn’t work for Maybrick because he died in 1889. He couldn’t have ordered a diary and planned murders that far ahead.

“We thought for a while about switching to Jacob Levy who died in July of 1891. But then we got the journal and decided to go ahead with our original plan.”

Thank you, Michael, for your help making it make sense. Why didn’t you say that the first time? I believe you now.

Tell you what, Lombro, why don't you ask Caz if it makes sense?

She's already accepted that it does.

You and Ike may be the only two people in the world who pretend they can't grasp what is, after all, a very simple concept.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, Mike knew what an office receipt stub book is but he didn’t know that, by saying diary, people usually think daily diary and, if someone says, I have an 1891 Diary, it’s probably a daily diary.

Reading alone doesn’t help comprehension when there is so much that is incomprehensible...

Stub book, stubby “stubs and pubs” savant Mike.

Nothing in the text of the diary even hints that it's written in an "office receipt stub book", and the only person I've ever seen describe it as such is you.

Caz calls it "a scrapbook" so why not have a fight with her about what it's supposed to be?

Yes, an 1891 diary was likely to have been "a daily diary". One in which someone wrote their account of each day's events throughout the year of 1891. But that doesn't mean that the year 1891 would have been indelibly marked on it. As I've demonstrated, with examples, there are numerous historical diaries which don't have the dates or year(s) printed or stamped on them them. I even referred you to a 1900 diary in which the year 1900 appears nowhere in it, not even in the handwritten text, and certainly not on the cover. Perhaps Mike Barrett knew more about Victorian diaries than you do. Ever considered that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This from one of the biggest gaslighters on these threads. Why can't you just piss off?

You keep throwing out that silly phrase in the complete absence of answers. You misquoted me and I pointed it out. Get over it and stop being so precious.

[Scott Nelson]

Please take note and stop inventing things.

This from one of the biggest gaslighters on these threads. Why can't you just piss off?

[Lombro2]

Here! Let me help you make it make sense?

”We got the 1891 Diary and knew right away, it wouldn’t work for Maybrick because he died in 1889. He couldn’t have ordered a diary and planned murders that far ahead.

“We thought for a while about switching to Jacob Levy who died in July of 1891. But then we got the journal and decided to go ahead with our original plan.”

Thank you, Michael, for your help making it make sense. Why didn’t you say that the first time? I believe you now.

[Lombro2]

Right, Mike knew what an office receipt stub book is but he didn’t know that, by saying diary, people usually think daily diary and, if someone says, I have an 1891 Diary, it’s probably a daily diary.

Reading alone doesn’t help comprehension when there is so much that is incomprehensible...

Stub book, stubby “stubs and pubs” savant Mike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

These guys are admitting that Michael Barrett, and even Anne, after reading Tales of Liverpool and, doing months if not years of research, still didn’t know that Maybrick died in 1889.

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

I'm pretty sure you mean the 1891 diary, but can I ask you something Lombro.

Have you understood a single word of any of the posts I've made today?

Have you even read them?

Michael Barrett as the forger, of course, knew that James Maybrick died in 1889. But an 1891 diary without any markings of "1891" would have been perfectly suitable to to create an 1888 or 1889 diary.

Just to make you feel warm and comfortable: Caz has already accepted this.

[Lombro2]

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

These guys are admitting that Michael Barrett, and even Anne, after reading Tales of Liverpool and, doing months if not years of research, still didn’t know that Maybrick died in 1889.

[Iconoclast]

Where is that brewed nowadays? Not close to Newcastle I bet... last time I had a bottle of dog it was grim compared to when it was brewed in the North East.

Wiki says:

"Newcastle Brown Ale is no longer brewed in Newcastle. Initially brewed in Newcastle upon Tyne, production was moved to Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, at the John Smith's Brewery in 2010 [heresy!]. Heineken, who owns the brand, also brews it at their Zoeterwoude brewery in the Netherlands and, for the North American market, at Lagunitas Brewing Company's facilities in Petaluma, California, and Chicago, Illinois."

Of course, in the 1970s (when I first started going to the Cathedral on the Hill), it was brewed at the Scottish & Newcastle Breweries site across the road on Barrack Road and you could be intoxicated by the smell of malt wafting in the air long before you got the same from the skills of Malcolm MacDonald (by far the greatest player ever to wear the black and white shirt and the famous no. 9).

The day I first went to Edinburgh for the day (with my mate who wanted his USA visa stamped at the old American embassy) in the summer of 1987, I got out of his car at the old George Square car park (nowhere near the embassy) and was immediately assailed by the smell of malt in the air all the way from Scottish & Newcastle Breweries at Fountainbridge, not a million miles away from Tynecastle Park and the home of Heart of Midlothian, and I knew I was home. Bizarrely, three months later I fluked a place at Edinburgh University as a postgrad. Fate, me lads, t'was all Fate.

Also bizarrely, there's a chemical in a bottle of dog that seriously plays with my head - makes me go a bit mental. I really ought to call that stuff 'Maybrick'. Unlike this place, I tend to stay away from the original as much as I can ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way, Barrett Believers, if Earl's ad had stated 1880-1888, I'd have still been able to pursue my 'other Victorian document' theory, but - honestly - I'd have been stretching.

It is the phrasing of the ad which is inexplicable if he is seeking a diary to do his hoaxing worst in - as is the request for a 'diary'. And, then, he compounds this all by agreeing to take an 1891 diary - actions which can only be explained if he truly is stupendously thick (okay, we might be getting somewhere there ...).

But, then, he goes and reveals the truth in his Jan 5, 1995, affidavit. No forgetting dates this time - this time he reveals for the first time that his wife Anne Barrett had ordered an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepted an 1891 one without any difficult questions like "Would it actually work for a hoax?".

Nope, the ad should have said, "Brainless Scouse scally is seeking a DOCUMENT from no later than 1888 - the year that Jack the Ripper famously murdered those women in London and Manchester. Must have quite a lot of pages to write in. I wonder why?".

To save money, he could instead have just asked for, "Document from no later than 1888 with at least twenty blank consecutive pages".

The fact that he didn't simply has to be a problem for the Barrett Hoax Believers.

I think it's been explained about a million times that Mike was wanting a diary with genuine paper from the period so it didn't need to be from exactly 1888.

It's also been said about another million times, and I think you've even accepted, that the actual Jack the Ripper diary could be contained in a document manufactured in 1891.

This means the Ripper diary could be contained in what you would describe as "an impossible document" but we still can't say it's fake for that reason because there is no evidence on it of the year of manufacture.

Likewise, if Mike had acquired an 1890 diary with no evidence on it of the year of manufacture, he could have used it for an 1888 Ripper diary.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent, Ike, all things considered. How is it that you still haven't grasped this extremely simple concept?