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

[Iconoclast]

You're going to have to explain to me Ike, in simple words I can understand, why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for a fake 1888/89 diary.

Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?

While you're doing that, could you also explain to me how we know that the actual diary (i.e. the photograph album) was not manufactured in 1891.

It has no date on it so the scrapbook itself does not tell us.

[rjpalmer]

Anne and Billy Graham went on the record to say they had seen it long, long, long before March 9, 1992. I find that rather compelling, though I can't prove it is true

Hello Ike.

I have to leave and do something more productive, but I'm glad you brought this up.

It's refreshing to see that you have a 'compelling' reason to doubt the electrical provenance, for certainly if Anne had seen the diary the 1960s it seems wildly unlikely that she could have found a way to hide it under Dodd's floorboards prior to March 1992. Nor has she ever made that claim.

Yet, how compelling is her story? I missed it the first go round, but I noticed recently that on at least three occasions Caroline has made a startling allegation and one highly relevant to Anne's "in the family" provenance: that Paul Feldman had offered Anne eyepopping financial inducements to support his provenance theory (ie., that she was related to Florence Maybrick and that the diary had thus come down through her family).

Certainly--if true--this would put Anne's story in an entirely different light. But is it true? Caroline has never given a source for this bombshell, nor do I recall Keith Skinner alerting the public to this remarkable financial arrangement when Keith supported Anne's story in The Ripperologist, on this forum, or in the introduction to Anne's own book. I think he would have done so.

Here are the receipts.

Caz Brown—Incontrovertible thread, 12-16-2021, 03:31 AM

“Would it have been so very surprising if Anne, in July 1994, had been swayed by Feldy's talk of making her a millionaire, with the added bonus of clearing her of any association with Mike's effed up forgery claims, which were bound to affect her if believed?”

Caz Brown, Incontrovertible thread, 05-03-2023, 03:50 AM

“The bonus, if she signed on the dotted line to confirm that nobody else would be claiming prior ownership of the diary, was that Feldman was talking about making her a millionaire.”


Caz Brown: Incontrovertible thread 02-06-2024, 07:36 AM

“Palmer can water this down as much as he likes, to suggest that Eddie was just like any other chap receiving a cold call, who would jump at the chance to support a film producer's provenance if there was money in it. But the irony is delicious, when we consider Feldman's promise a year later to make Anne Graham a millionaire if she would similarly 'help' with his provenance."


(Note by RJP: For the life of me, I don’t see how this is ironic—let alone deliciously so; if true, it is mere confirmation that people can be swayed by an alleged promise of filthy lucre. If true, it undermines the allegations against Eddy instead of supporting them).

And I don’t think this is mere water under the bridge, either.

If there is evidence that Feldy was truly offering financial incentives for people to come up with a helpful provenance as he struggled to find a film deal it might have considerable bearing on the electrician theory.

Feldman claims in his book that an unnamed electrician had asked ‘what is it worth’ to admit stealing the Diary from Dodd’s house, but if Caroline's allegation against Feldman is true, how do we know Feldman didn't make or imply similar financial compensation to one of the electricians? (He would hardly have admitted it in print).

In brief, what is the source for Caroline’s remarkable allegation---and can Keith confirm it?

But I hope Caroline hasn't thrice stated this as a fact based on nothing more than idle speculation from a wounded Shirely Harrison, upset that Anne had contacted Feldman before contacting her. It is a strange coincidence (?) that on the bottom of page 137 of Inside Story, Shirley Harrison speculates that such an arrangement had been struck up:

“He (Feldman) probably promised a share of the megamillions,” [Shirley] believed.” (Emphasis added)

I've failed to find any other source for this bombshell allegation.

I look forward to any clarification. Is it a fact that Feldman made such a promise?

I'll pop back in a day or two.

Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then you don't understand the dynamics that occur in a marriage. It doesn't have to be nefarious. If she knew it was stolen, it was in her interests to deflect attention on to Tony Devereux whom she knew had nothing to do with it.

You'll have to explain that one to me, Ike. Why would it have been "in her interests" to assist Mike in creating a fake document to "deflect attention on to Tony Devereux" if the diary had been stolen.

Also, how did she know it was stolen?

And if she knew the diary was stolen at the time she created the fake document (in 1992), why did she later (in 1993) ask her husband, "did you nick it, Mike?" in front of Paul Begg, Martin Howells and Paul Feldman?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?



It has no date on it so the scrapbook itself does not tell us.

You're missing the bit which explains why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for an 1888/89 diary.

If the diary that Mike was being offered by Martin Earl was written in an undated journal, scrapbook or perhaps even an old photograph album (as you seem to think some Victorians would have done), and Mike removed the pages containing the 1891 diary entries, how would anyone have known it was originally an 1891 diary?

Just like we don't know that the photograph album in which the diary is written might originally have been an 1891 photograph album.

[Iconoclast]

Honestly, I can't keep doing these anything-is-possible-if-it-suits-me games.

Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be.

That's all any of us need to know and I can't be arsed with pretending all manner of scenarios to wish this truth away.

If me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle, but she doesn't and she isn't so I leave the complicated excuses and apologies to you.

Just don't try to pretend that it was "an undated journal, scrapbook or perhaps even an old photograph album" because that's not what Barrett accepted. He accepted an 1891 diary and your argument is completely ****ed, mate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Honestly, I can't keep doing these anything-is-possible-if-it-suits-me games.

Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be.

That's all any of us need to know and I can't be arsed with pretending all manner of scenarios to wish this truth away.

If me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle, but she doesn't and she isn't so I leave the complicated excuses and apologies to you.

Just don't try to pretend that it was "an undated journal, scrapbook or perhaps even an old photograph album" because that's not what Barrett accepted. He accepted an 1891 diary and your argument is completely ****ed, mate.

You're entirely missing the point that an 1891 diary could have been written in an undated journal.

I seem to recall that your best friend once posted a string of examples of images of such diaries where the date is only known through the handwritten diary entries, which can easily be removed.

Can you please tell me that you understand this? Otherwise I'm going to have to start to get worried about you.

[Iconoclast]

But it wasn’t an unwritten journal!

So, yes, someone in 1891 could have written their thoughts that year into an unwritten journal. Happy now? We have achieved nothing but are you happy now? Me auntie is now well on the way to becoming me uncle. Whoopi-doo.

Does that change the fact that what Earl’s supplier had come up with was an 1891 diary? A diary that was for 1891 and not for any other year and not an unwritten journal (i.e., a notebook).

Please reassure me that you have grasped this simple fact because you’re starting to sound as composed as our chancellor of the exchequer.

[Iconoclast]

Earl: it’s an 1891 diary, Mr. Barrett.
Barrett: Tell you what, say it’s an unwritten journal and we have a deal.

Make it make sense - please!!!!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it wasn’t an unwritten journal!

So, yes, someone in 1891 could have written their thoughts that year into an unwritten journal. Happy now? We have achieved nothing but are you happy now? Me auntie is now well on the way to becoming me uncle. Whoopi-doo.

Does that change the fact that what Earl’s supplier had come up with was an 1891 diary? A diary that was for 1891 and not for any other year and not an unwritten journal (i.e., a notebook).

Please reassure me that you have grasped this simple fact because you’re starting to sound as composed as our chancellor of the exchequer.

What do you mean by "it wasn't an unwritten journal!"?

Did you mean to say it wasn't an undated journal? Or is your emphasis on the word "journal"?

Whichever you mean is said with the full benefit of hindsight. Prior to purchasing it, Mike hadn't seen it, that's the whole point.

There is only one thing we know for an absolute fact about Mike's knowledge of 19th century diaries. It is that he believed a 19th century diary could be written in an old undated book without any date on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.

How do we know this?

Simple. Because he told Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 that he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary before presenting her on 13th April 1992 with an old undated book without any year on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.

So we know that, for Mike, an 1888 or 1889 diary didn't have to have the year on the cover. It didn't have to have the dates printed on the pages. I'm suggesting that's precisely what he envisaged in his mind when he was told that Martin Earl could source an 1891 diary.

And it's a perfectly reasonable thing for him to have envisaged because plenty of 19th century diaries didn't have the date on the cover or the the date printed on the pages. They were written in the nineteenth century notebooks, scrapbooks and the like. Not in official diaries. They became diaries because of the way they were used. If I were to start a diary myself today in a notebook or exercise book it would be a 2025 diary but that date need not be printed anywhere on it.

Unless you have some additional evidence about what Mike believed a Victorian diary to look like, we can't take this issue any further. We can only say that his agreement to purchase the 1891 diary is not necessarily inconsistent with a desire to use it for a fake Jack the Ripper diary of 1888/89.

What we can say with certainty is that Mike didn't originally want a diary from 1891. He wanted a diary from the period 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages (but not limited to 20 blank pages) and you simply can't explain why. The explanation, however, seems pretty obvious to me. He wanted to use that diary, containing paper from the right period which would pass scientific tests, to write a fake diary of Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Earl: it’s an 1891 diary, Mr. Barrett.
Barrett: Tell you what, say it’s an unwritten journal and we have a deal.

Make it make sense - please!!!!!!

Once again you use the expression "unwritten journal" and I don't quite know what you mean. It seems to be in response to me having posted: "You're entirely missing the point that an 1891 diary could have been written in an undated journal."

Perhaps you are just hopelessly confused about this issue.

The imaginary conversation you've set out between Earl and Barrett entirely misses the point that an undated journal or an unwritten journal (whatever that means) could ALSO have been an 1891 diary, as long as the diarist had written at least one dated entry during 1891.

Keith Skinner tells us that "nearly" all the pages of the 1891 diary were blank so there must have been some writing somewhere in it, which one would naturally assume consists of diary entries. It would only have needed someone to have written an entry for a day in 1891 which would mean that any book or journal (of whatever description) would then have become an 1891 diary. I'm not sure you understand this. You don't seem to know what a diary is. You seem to have a fixed notion of an appointments diary. But people write diaries in all sorts of things. Indeed, your entire argument is based on James Maybrick having written his personal diary in an old photograph album. So it's really odd that you seem to be able to hold these two contradictory notions in your head at the same time about what a diary must look like.

[Iconoclast]

I’m on holiday right now so I’ll come back to this special pleading nonsense later.

So Orsam, though - it’s honestly like hearing his echo from posts of years ago.

It was desperate then and it’s desperate now. Nothing changes!

PS Yes, I meant undated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m on holiday right now so I’ll come back to this special pleading nonsense later.

So Orsam, though - it’s honestly like hearing his echo from posts of years ago.

It was desperate then and it’s desperate now. Nothing changes!

PS Yes, I meant undated.

Yes, it was Orsam who posted a string of images of old diaries which are dated only by the dates of their handwritten entries, thus proving that a diary need not be emblazoned with the year to which it pertains. If I sound like Orsam it's only because what he was saying was so obviously and demonstrably correct. The only extraordinary thing is that it doesn't seem to have sunk in after all these years.

Ike, you are the undefeated Heavyweight Champion of Excuse Making for this forged diary.

[John Wheat]

I’m on holiday right now so I’ll come back to this special pleading nonsense later.

So Orsam, though - it’s honestly like hearing his echo from posts of years ago.

It was desperate then and it’s desperate now. Nothing changes!

PS Yes, I meant undated.

The idea that Maybrick wrote the diary is nonsense.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, you are the undefeated Heavyweight Champion of Excuse Making for this forged diary.

Nope, that's you and RJ and Orsam, mate. I can't think of anyone else who has stretched credulity quite like you three (two?) have in order to try to salvage a point or avoid an awkward piece of evidence.

This one is undoubtedly one of Orsam's finest stupidities and anyone who buys into such depths of special pleading is revealing the one-way vision of a truly unreasonable mind.

So, what is it Orsam was saying? Well, as I recall, he was claiming that Michael Barrett's advert in Bookbinder was effectively a request for genuine 1880 to 1890 paper upon which to scribe his magnum opus. But rather than simply request 'an 1880-1890 document with at least twenty pages', he plumped for the word 'diary'. Well, straightaway there's a problem because - by definition - a true diary must have a date on it and everyone knows that, and so must Michael Barrett so his asking for an 1890 diary and settling for an 1891 diary shows us all that he was not planning a hoaxed James Maybrick diary. Big problem for the Naysayers!

So, in true Orsam fashion, what does he do? Well, he simply reinterprets the facts until the fit his argument. And that's what Sholmes did a couple of posts ago, dear readers. He simply cut and pasted Orsam's argument of a few years ago and embarrassingly claimed it as his own. What was the argument that turned water into wine, though?

Well, it was this: Michael Barrett had not actually wanted what he asked for, he had wanted what Orsam wanted him to have asked for - namely, just paper from that period. And the easiest way around his use of the word 'diary' was to argue that Barrett said 'diary' when he meant anything from that period. How so? Well, because anything from that period once inscribed with Barrett's work of genius must - also by definition - become a 'diary'. Ten boxes of Cornflakes spread out on a table are just ten boxes of Cornflakes - but write a record of your thoughts onto their reverse and you have a diary!

That's because a thing (say, a notebook) that is not the classic definition of some other thing (say, a diary) which is used in a way which resembles the classic definition of some other thing (say, a diary) by necessity retrospectively gains the right to be called that thing. If it functions as something, it has become that thing.

But it's not that thing until it functions as that thing! So a notebook (or a load of Cornflake boxes) is not a diary until such time as it are used as a diary. It doesn't even have to contain a date: we all know what a 'diary' is and something bearing someone's thoughts is a 'diary'.

So that's what Orsam and RJ and Sholmes are doing to get around the fact that Barrett accepted a document that was described to him as an 1891 diary. They are saying he wasn't looking for a diary at all - he was looking for something that could be used as a 'diary' so he didn't care to dig deeper and ask if it was dated on every page. He just assumed it was a blank document that - for some reason - Martin Earl was saying was made in 1891.

If you want to buy into such dreadful special pleading, I can do nothing to stop you. But don't think you'll ever persuade me that a man looking for a diary or a document which could have been used by James Maybrick would have accepted 'an 1891 diary' without asking for clarity around what it was about it that made it so obviously made in or to be used in 1891 (two years after James Maybrick died, remember, everyone). To have not asked Earl, "So what makes you say it is an 1891 diary?" would be a stupidity even greater than anyone arguing that he would have assumed it was completely blank (with perhaps one mention of 1891 at the very front which he could have Typp-Ex'd out).

And to argue that Earl thought it was an 1891 diary because someone had written something in for the year 1891 does not negate the imperative for Barrett to ask, "So what makes you say it is an 1891 diary?" because someone could have written their '1891' entry at any time beforehand (if there was no reference to '1891' printed in it) or indeed afterwards. It's only valid paper from that period if it was manufactured in that period, so he had to dig deeper. The obvious question for Barrett to ask was what was causing Earl to think it was an 1891 diary, to which no amount of special pleading could ever mask the fact that the answer to that question either had to be, "Because the supplier told me" to which Barrett would have had to have asked, "And what caused them to think it was an 1891 diary?" or else, "Because it says so five times on every pair of pages". If it was the former, Barrett would have needed to know it could not actually be the latter but - oh no - he just accepts it.

The reality, dear readers, is that Michael Barrett knew exactly what Martin Earl had procured for him and it was evidently enough for his needs because he accepted it despite it costing £66 in today's money. That's not the actions of a man seeking a document James Maybrick could have written into, and Orsam and RJ and Sholmes know it. They just don't want you to know it.

So they have to create these fantastic flights of fancy around what Barrett thought a diary was. Don't be fooled. They are jerking your chains, and you'd all be much better throwing them off instead.

[Iconoclast]

The idea that Maybrick wrote the diary is nonsense.

Well, it is Thursday, Wheato.