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

[Herlock Sholmes]

But is it the only explanation, Wheato? You are welcome to believe wholeheartedly in the one you like, the one that fits your narrative (however indolent that may be of you), but can you - in all honesty - say that it is the only option (as tyrants and the evangelical turn instinctively to)?

Just a wee warning, when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it. When someone tells you one theory amongst many is the only possible answer to a question, you can rest assured that they need you to believe that for their own premise to be maintained.

You are welcome to continue to assume that what you think is obvious and logical is necessarily the answer, but you may be wrong. You may feel that the small issue of Barrett seeking an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 diary festooned with '1891' throughout it can be easily explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, but other people hear the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes and realise that a truly unlikely scenario is being constructed to shoehorn in to a theory elements which seem on the surface (yes, 'obviously' and 'logically') to be impossible to justifiably shoehorn in whilst still keeping a straight face.

It feels for all the world like the Earth is flat. It feels for all the world that the sun revolves around the Earth. But are these two the only possibilities you are willing to consider?

PS Honestly, mate, it's pointless hanging on the coat tails of someone who demands you believe something which is patently untrue (that there is only one interpretation of an event possible). It's even more pointless engaging with them but I appreciate that you are still a long way away yet from that conclusion.

I have to correct two shocking falsehoods in your post, Ike.

The first is your claim that "when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it." I have said your theory is nonsensical while, at the same time, inviting every member of this forum to consider it. On each occasion you have run away from the discussion.

I first set out why your explanation for Mike seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages made no sense in my #20 of "The Maybrick Thread" on 23 April 2025. There was no response of any substance ma by you to this post.

You tried again in July with a new explanation. I set out why your new explanation made no sense in my #1321 in this thread on 16th July (which was in addition to my posts of #1305 and #1320). To date, no response has been received to my #1321.

I also replied to Caz's different explanation in #1343 in this thread on 17th July. In that post, I asked her a number of questions and said to her directly: "Without solid answers to these questions, I regret to say that your explanation makes no more sense that Ike's gibberish." No answers have been forthcoming to date. There has been no response at all to the post.

Far from hoping that people won't consider your nonsensical explanation, therefore, I have expressly drawn attention to it, wanting it to be considered by every sane member of this forum who will immediately see it for the utter, baffling nonsense that it is.

The second falsehood in your post is that Mike's acceptance of the 1891 diary is "explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes",

The fact of the matter is that neither of us know, or can possibly know, why Mike accepted the 1891 diary so we both have to premise our arguments on speculation. It's just that you don't do this, because you're special, but abuse the word "must". So, rather than say something like, "if Michael Barret knew that Victorian diaries were pre-printed he wouldn't have bought the 1891 diary", you say that Mike Barrett "must" have known about Victorian pre-printed diaries even though it is pure speculation on your part.

I can do that too if it makes you feel better. For example:

"Michael Barret must not have known that Victorian diaries contained pre-printed dates".

"Michael Barret must have known that Victorian diaries were often written in notebooks or exercise books".

"Michael Barrett must not have asked Martin Earl any questions".

"Michael Barrett must have heard Earl say that nearly all the pages in the 1891 diary were blank and thus agreed to purchase it on this basis".

"Michael Barrett must thought that he'd send the diary back if it wasn't any good but then forgot to do so".

See how easy it is? Not an if, but or maybe in sight. Does that make you happy?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock
The obvious logical reason why Mike was looking for a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages is to create a fake Victorian Diary as you say.
Cheers John

But is it the only explanation, Wheato? You are welcome to believe wholeheartedly in the one you like, the one that fits your narrative (however indolent that may be of you), but can you - in all honesty - say that it is the only option (as tyrants and the evangelical turn instinctively to)?

Just a wee warning, when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it. When someone tells you one theory amongst many is the only possible answer to a question, you can rest assured that they need you to believe that for their own premise to be maintained.

You are welcome to continue to assume that what you think is obvious and logical is necessarily the answer, but you may be wrong. You may feel that the small issue of Barrett seeking an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 diary festooned with '1891' throughout it can be easily explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, but other people hear the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes and realise that a truly unlikely scenario is being constructed to shoehorn in to a theory elements which seem on the surface (yes, 'obviously' and 'logically') to be impossible to justifiably shoehorn in whilst still keeping a straight face.

It feels for all the world like the Earth is flat. It feels for all the world that the sun revolves around the Earth. But are these two the only possibilities you are willing to consider?

PS Honestly, mate, it's pointless hanging on the coat tails of someone who demands you believe something which is patently untrue (that there is only one interpretation of an event possible). It's even more pointless engaging with them but I appreciate that you are still a long way away yet from that conclusion.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Perhaps Mike Barrett just wanted to stare at the empty pages

[John Wheat]

Dear Ike's imaginary dear readers,

As you may be aware, Ike has been on quite the diary journey.

In September 2016, his total ignorance of personal Victorian diaries was demonstrated when he asked:

"Do most diaries not have evidence of the year on every major page? Isn't that kind of the point of a diary?"

He had to be told by members of this forum that a significant number of Victorian diaries did not have such evidence.

You may remember Ike demanding from me empirical evidence of historical diaries without dates on their covers, obviously thinking no such evidence existed, but failing to even acknowledge my response when I provided such evidence.

There was a time when the only complaint he made about Barrett's advertisement was that it included a request for a diary from 1890 until I asked him why he thought 1889 was an acceptable year, something it only took him at least 10 years to work out.

You may also remember him saying it would be impossible for a plausible reconstructed dialogue to be created between Earl and Barrett following which Barrett accepted the 1891 diary, but I provided one for him in about five minutes.

And I'm sure you all remember him telling us in post after post that a diary from 1891 was an "impossible" year for an 1888 hoax. We don't hear that repeated nonsense from him any more, thankfully, now that he's been educated about historical diaries.

In 30 years time, perhaps someone will say that Ike must surely have done some research into historical diaries before posting his unfounded assumptions on an internet message board. But they would be wrong, just like he is patently wrong to say what Barrett must have done during his telephone conversation with Earl.

His analysis is like one we would expect from a new born babe with no experience of the world.

Surely it is extremely common for someone in an unusual situation when presented with new information which they have to assimilate quickly to fail to ask questions which, afterwards, they think of as obvious questions and can't work out why they didn't ask them.

In the case of Barrett's conversation with Earl, we have to consider whether Earl was a clever and persuasive salesman who wanted to close the deal and used sophisticated psychological sales techniques, whether Barrett feared that Earl might think he was a time-waster if he didn't purchase the diary, whether Barrett felt under immense time pressure to get a diary to Doreen, whether Barrett was optimistic by nature and heard what he wanted to hear. We can't possibly know any of these things.

Critically, we need to consider whether Barrett might have thought that if the diary turned out to be of no use he could always return it but then simply forgot to do so. After all, one of the massive flaws in Ike's entire argument is that Barrett did not pay for the 1891 diary, at least not until after 30 days had passed when there was no choice but to ask his wife to pay for it.

All that aside, we don't even know if Barrett even realized that Victorian diaries contained printed dates or whether he simply assumed that they would not. Loads of people never challenge their own assumptions. Ike is a classic example of this. He needed me to educate him in a manner that was like pulling teeth. You will all recall that it took a while but we got there in the end in respect of his belated admission that an 1891 diary could have been used to create the 1888 diary of Jack the Ripper.

What might be called "Ike's Last Stand" is on the issue of whether Mike would have asked if the 1891 diary he was being offered had printed dates, about which we all know it's impossible for him say that Mike "must" have asked this question.

All I need to say is that it isn't necessarily the case that Mike would have asked such a question, or any questions at all, which is so obviously correct.

I truly don't think there's anything more to be said about the 1891 diary.

So we go back to the real question of why Mike was seeking a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages which, as neither Ike or Caz can explain it (both offering contradictory, nonsensical explanations), strikes me, like I'm sure it strikes you, dear imaginary Ike's dear readers, as extremely persuasive evidence that he was seeking a genuine Victorian diary to create a fake Victorian diary.

Hi Herlock

The obvious logical reason why Mike was looking for a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages is to create a fake Victorian Diary as you say.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

My dear readers, when you find yourself on an internet discussion group and there is a mystery in the air, you should not be overly alarmed to find contrasting views being expressed. You will get Bob saying that A explains Z; and then along will come Helga who will argue that B explains Z; and then along will come Nilesh who will propose that C explains Z. Maybe Francois will chip in that perhaps D explains Z. Everyone gives their reasons for believing what they believe and all is fair and reasonable if not necessarily harmonious.

And then Vladimir decides to launch himself into what to him is previously unoccupied territory, bombarding everyone there with his trenchant views on what is right and what is wrong about the history of Z and how V explains it all. And then he starts replying to every single thing anyone posts, often making accusations which don't ever get properly backed-up, until he's shouting so loudly and so frequently that many of the posters stop posting and some stop even reading. He has a cast of useful idiots backing-up his every claim, constructing barbed lines supported by ridiculous posts which can barely stand up to the positions they defend. And then he pulls his trump card out of the hat: yes, his theory that V explains Z is the only one which explains Z. He starts to blatantly lie about the truth of what is happening: there are and can be no other versions of the truth bar his and anyone who says otherwise or otherwise disagrees with him in even the most tangential sense gets hit with long and utterly destructive missives. He can't be contradicted because his vanity precludes the very possibility. Posters start to mysteriously fall out of hotel windows - many of them willingly so, whenever they see he's logged-on.

And then he has achieved what he has set out to do: destroy another democratic process which he feels might threaten his hegemony. He and his remaining acolytes will gloat that they have won a great victory, but the world will know that he is just another vainglorious Ozymandias sinking in the endless sand that stretches for miles and miles around.

The only thing you can do in the face of a mind that is convinced that its truth is the only possible truth is to get as far away as possible from it and hope that one day it simply withers on the vine so that free and democratic speech can prevail once again.

Your Hope, Inspiration, and Comforter
General Sir Ike Iconoclast
Leader of the Free Word

"We'll Meet Again"

Dear Ike's imaginary dear readers,

As you may be aware, Ike has been on quite the diary journey.

In September 2016, his total ignorance of personal Victorian diaries was demonstrated when he asked:

"Do most diaries not have evidence of the year on every major page? Isn't that kind of the point of a diary?"

He had to be told by members of this forum that a significant number of Victorian diaries did not have such evidence.

You may remember Ike demanding from me empirical evidence of historical diaries without dates on their covers, obviously thinking no such evidence existed, but failing to even acknowledge my response when I provided such evidence.

There was a time when the only complaint he made about Barrett's advertisement was that it included a request for a diary from 1890 until I asked him why he thought 1889 was an acceptable year, something it only took him at least 10 years to work out.

You may also remember him saying it would be impossible for a plausible reconstructed dialogue to be created between Earl and Barrett following which Barrett accepted the 1891 diary, but I provided one for him in about five minutes.

And I'm sure you all remember him telling us in post after post that a diary from 1891 was an "impossible" year for an 1888 hoax. We don't hear that repeated nonsense from him any more, thankfully, now that he's been educated about historical diaries.

In 30 years time, perhaps someone will say that Ike must surely have done some research into historical diaries before posting his unfounded assumptions on an internet message board. But they would be wrong, just like he is patently wrong to say what Barrett must have done during his telephone conversation with Earl.

His analysis is like one we would expect from a new born babe with no experience of the world.

Surely it is extremely common for someone in an unusual situation when presented with new information which they have to assimilate quickly to fail to ask questions which, afterwards, they think of as obvious questions and can't work out why they didn't ask them.

In the case of Barrett's conversation with Earl, we have to consider whether Earl was a clever and persuasive salesman who wanted to close the deal and used sophisticated psychological sales techniques, whether Barrett feared that Earl might think he was a time-waster if he didn't purchase the diary, whether Barrett felt under immense time pressure to get a diary to Doreen, whether Barrett was optimistic by nature and heard what he wanted to hear. We can't possibly know any of these things.

Critically, we need to consider whether Barrett might have thought that if the diary turned out to be of no use he could always return it but then simply forgot to do so. After all, one of the massive flaws in Ike's entire argument is that Barrett did not pay for the 1891 diary, at least not until after 30 days had passed when there was no choice but to ask his wife to pay for it.

All that aside, we don't even know if Barrett even realized that Victorian diaries contained printed dates or whether he simply assumed that they would not. Loads of people never challenge their own assumptions. Ike is a classic example of this. He needed me to educate him in a manner that was like pulling teeth. You will all recall that it took a while but we got there in the end in respect of his belated admission that an 1891 diary could have been used to create the 1888 diary of Jack the Ripper.

What might be called "Ike's Last Stand" is on the issue of whether Mike would have asked if the 1891 diary he was being offered had printed dates, about which we all know it's impossible for him say that Mike "must" have asked this question.

All I need to say is that it isn't necessarily the case that Mike would have asked such a question, or any questions at all, which is so obviously correct.

I truly don't think there's anything more to be said about the 1891 diary.

So we go back to the real question of why Mike was seeking a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages which, as neither Ike or Caz can explain it (both offering contradictory, nonsensical explanations), strikes me, like I'm sure it strikes you, dear imaginary Ike's dear readers, as extremely persuasive evidence that he was seeking a genuine Victorian diary to create a fake Victorian diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wouldn't he ask for a diary with blank pages?

I mean really!

"Hello, Mr Earl? Can you find me a Victorian Diary? You know, the ones with all the pages filled in. Yes. No blank pages. Thank you."

l mean. Come on, people! This is where the script for Schtonk 2 rises or falls!

What are you talking about now, Lombro?

The advertisement placed by Martin Earl asked for a "partly used" Victorian diary which would include a diary with most of the pages filled in. What difference, in your mind, would it have made to Mike if there were 30 blank pages, 20 blank pages, 10 blank pages, 5 blank pages, 2 blank pages or none?

Why, in your mind, would Mike have cared if "all the pages were filled in"? Isn't that what one would expect if one is buying a second hand diary? Can you please explain it?

[Iconoclast]

My dear readers, when you find yourself on an internet discussion group and there is a mystery in the air, you should not be overly alarmed to find contrasting views being expressed. You will get Bob saying that A explains Z; and then along will come Helga who will argue that B explains Z; and then along will come Nilesh who will propose that C explains Z. Maybe Francois will chip in that perhaps D explains Z. Everyone gives their reasons for believing what they believe and all is fair and reasonable if not necessarily harmonious.

And then Vladimir decides to launch himself into what to him is previously unoccupied territory, bombarding everyone there with his trenchant views on what is right and what is wrong about the history of Z and how V explains it all. And then he starts replying to every single thing anyone posts, often making accusations which don't ever get properly backed-up, until he's shouting so loudly and so frequently that many of the posters stop posting and some stop even reading. He has a cast of useful idiots backing-up his every claim, constructing barbed lines supported by ridiculous posts which can barely stand up to the positions they defend. And then he pulls his trump card out of the hat: yes, his theory that V explains Z is the only one which explains Z. He starts to blatantly lie about the truth of what is happening: there are and can be no other versions of the truth bar his and anyone who says otherwise or otherwise disagrees with him in even the most tangential sense gets hit with long and utterly destructive missives. He can't be contradicted because his vanity precludes the very possibility. Posters start to mysteriously fall out of hotel windows - many of them willingly so, whenever they see he's logged-on.

And then he has achieved what he has set out to do: destroy another democratic process which he feels might threaten his hegemony. He and his remaining acolytes will gloat that they have won a great victory, but the world will know that he is just another vainglorious Ozymandias sinking in the endless sand that stretches for miles and miles around.

The only thing you can do in the face of a mind that is convinced that its truth is the only possible truth is to get as far away as possible from it and hope that one day it simply withers on the vine so that free and democratic speech can prevail once again.

Your Hope, Inspiration, and Comforter
General Sir Ike Iconoclast
Leader of the Free Word

"We'll Meet Again"

[Lombro2]

Schtonk is in the tonk.

[Lombro2]

Why wouldn't he ask for a diary with blank pages?

I mean really!

"Hello, Mr Earl? Can you find me a Victorian Diary? You know, the ones with all the pages filled in. Yes. No blank pages. Thank you."

l mean. Come on, people! This is where the script for Schtonk 2 rises or falls!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

"Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up."? How is he committing a crime by seeking out a Victorian diary with blank pages? How is he covering up a crime by seeking out a Victorian diary with blank pages?

Whichever way you try to slice it, the blank pages requirement screams out that he wanted to write something on those blank pages because that's the only reason for requiring them. And he wanted blank pages specifically from 1880-1890. When someone asks me what two plus two is, I think I'm capable of working out the answer.

For your benefit, Lombro, the answer is "four".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now, now Herlock you are talking sense. That will simply not do for some people on here

Darryl

Welcome to the Land That Reason Forgot, Darryl.

[John Wheat]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

Absolutely ridiculous post. It is an obvious forgery with all the evidence pointing to it being penned by the Barretts. You nor anyone else has shown any sort of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Just to try and explain to you what's going on in this thread, Lombro...

I'm not trying to prove anything about the identity of the forger(s). All I'm doing is saying that Michael Barrett's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 seems mighty suspicious considering that a few weeks after he started doing so he presented a literary agent in London with a hitherto unknown diary of Jack the Ripper which a forger could have created quite simply by acquiring an old Victorian or Edwardian photograph album with blank pages, ripping out the pages with photographs on them, removing any identifying labels on the inside cover, obtaining some commercially available ink with Victorian properties along with some nibs and using two or three books on Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick murder case to draft a fictional story whereby James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.

Now, now Herlock you are talking sense. That will simply not do for some people on here

Darryl

[Lombro2]

Anti Barrett Hoax Theory people can think for themselves. It’s the Pros who have put their heads together to come up with a lame theory that doesn’t fly except in your imagination.

Of course his behaviour is suspicious. Because he’s committing a crime or covering it up. I think he’s covering it up. You think he’s committing one and you think he would act suspiciously out in the open when he’s in the planning stages.

Hey Jack, can I have the plans for the bank? I’ll give you 25 pounds. Ha ha! No one will find out about this or think it suspicious, even after I rob the bank with no mask on!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an appropriate analogy of what’s going on here:

We’re still here talking about the existence of dragons.

Two people are “proving” the existence of dragons by explaining the physics of dragon flight.

Caz and Ike are showing them that this doesn’t fly.

Thank you.

Just to try and explain to you what's going on in this thread, Lombro...

I'm not trying to prove anything about the identity of the forger(s). All I'm doing is saying that Michael Barrett's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 seems mighty suspicious considering that a few weeks after he started doing so he presented a literary agent in London with a hitherto unknown diary of Jack the Ripper which a forger could have created quite simply by acquiring an old Victorian or Edwardian photograph album with blank pages, ripping out the pages with photographs on them, removing any identifying labels on the inside cover, obtaining some commercially available ink with Victorian properties along with some nibs and using two or three books on Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick murder case to draft a fictional story whereby James Maybrick was the Whitechapel murderer.

Even you could not have failed to notice that Ike's supposed explanation as to why Mike attempted to a acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 is totally different to Caz's supposed explanation. Each seems to reject the other's explanation, which is no wonder because neither makes any sense.