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

[Iconoclast]

Surely the critical flaw in every single post you make on this subject is that you write with 20/20 hindsight. Yes, you know today what the 1891 diary looks like. But Mike didn't when he was being offered it over the telephone, and there is zero evidence he was told anything about printed dates.
The only way you seem to get round this issue is to say that Mike would have asked questions. To which the simple and obvious reply is, not necessarily.
And that "not necessarily" is all I need because I make no positive point about the red diary. Whereas it's all you've got to counter the problem of Mike seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages. If you can prove that Mike either knew or would have asked about printed dates in the 1891 diary, go ahead and knock yourself out. Let's see that proof. But we've been discussing this for weeks if not months and you've produced nothing Ike.

Just out of interest, if you approached me to find you a diary suitable for what you know is to be a hoaxed 1888 record of someone's thoughts, and I came back to you and said I had found you a small 1891 diary, would you just say, Excellent, I'll take it?

Let's not play the 'proof' game when you don't have any proofs, mate - that's just a dense argument.

Look, you can keep being a bit dense, but no-one's falling for it. We can see you're being dense. The question is, are you being dense or just pretending to be dense?

[Iconoclast]

How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?

You ask your question so strangely - it's like you're phrasing it in order to look as though it means anything!

Obviously, no-one other than Mike knew what Mike Barrett thought about or was aware of regarding dated diaries in 1888, but none of it matters because that is not the issue which should be pre-occupying our thoughts. The question that one needs to answer is, Why would Mike Barrett not have thought there would be dated diaries in 1888?

To use your own analogy, if he were seeking a 1588 diary, he surely could not have known if there were dated diaries in 1588 so he'd definitely have to check that first. So why would that not apply in 1888 also?

If we do not know something, and that something is clearly very blatantly important to us, it is the thing that we would do first - resolving our doubts.

If Mike thought, I don't know if there were dated diaries in 1888, his next thought would have to be, I should check not, I'll assume there weren't.

Your argument is so gossamer thin, I can't believe you are acting so utterly dense and - worse - thinking no-one will notice how dense you are being.

God, please say you aren't going to say I haven't answered your question and then just ask it again, are you?

[Scott Nelson]

Increasingly, the whole schtick around here is to pretend that people have said something that they haven't said and then invent imaginary complications that make no sense.

So true, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

the misspellings and grammatical errors in Anne's private conversation

that should read correspondence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you'll find (if you do one of those you-said-this-four-billion-years-ago searches) that I included this type of diary in my definition of 'diaries'.

A document which has dates in it or a document which has places specifically reserved for dates has very clearly been produced to act as a diary (and I agree with your friend that the maximum value is to be had from skipping the dreadful days when nothing much happens - though, in this case, I would go further and suggest that a common or garden notebook does an even better job because it just feels uber-personalised without the little spaces for the dates) but that's not the point in the case of Mike Barrett's purchase of the 1891 diary.

According to the likes of you and Sholmes, Mike was seeking a suitable document to hoax the 1888 thoughts of a fictional James Maybrick into. This fact changes the game completely. He's gone from someone looking for a diary (with dates, with spaces for dates, or even an old notebook which could function as a record of someone's thoughts) - so a search in the general sense - to someone needing a document that could possibly pass for an 1888 record of someone's thoughts - so a search in the specific sense).

I'm so bored with this linguistic knitting. I agree that an 1891 diary with the appropriate characteristics could function as an 1888 diary but I stress that - within that - I reserve the right to expect someone seeking a very specific type of 'diary' to ask the simple questions to confirm its suitability for their very specific objective.

Bored, RJ. I'm completely bored with it. Let's not do this one again. Mike Barrett accepting a tiny 1891 diary is all the proof any of us need that this was NOT evidence that he was seeking to hoax the 1888 thoughts of a man who might have been Jack the Ripper. So - ipso facto - he must have wanted it for some other purpose.

Surely the critical flaw in every single post you make on this subject is that you write with 20/20 hindsight. Yes, you know today what the 1891 diary looks like. But Mike didn't when he was being offered it over the telephone, and there is zero evidence he was told anything about printed dates.

The only way you seem to get round this issue is to say that Mike would have asked questions. To which the simple and obvious reply is, not necessarily.

And that "not necessarily" is all I need because I make no positive point about the red diary. Whereas it's all you've got to counter the problem of Mike seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages. If you can prove that Mike either knew or would have asked about printed dates in the 1891 diary, go ahead and knock yourself out. Let's see that proof. But we've been discussing this for weeks if not months and you've produced nothing Ike.

[rjpalmer]

Of course, as someone pointed out, only a week or so later Anne assured Doreen that the diary would be kept securely in a safe in case the house burnt down.

Actually, wasn't her rationale that there had been burglaries in the neighborhood? Or alleged burglaries?

Yet, I'm insane for suggesting that Anne was conflicted about the diary. Typing up bogus research notes one minute, deeply reluctant to attend the book launch later.

Fighting Mike over the diary one moment (allegedly) and worried about burglars the next. Signing the collaboration agreement but refusing royalty cheques.

I don't think it's insanity that makes me see these things...I think it is simple observation.

[rjpalmer]

Oh dear. The mental gymnastics needed, to make Anne do what Palmer wants her to have done, while claiming that Martin Fido got it nearly right. Martin evidently didn't consider Anne to have been so afraid of Mike's violent abuse that she would have copied out the 63 pages herself, but only on the assumption that he would be sent packing by the people in London - to arrive home and violently abuse her again for muffing it.

You're badly misrepresenting Martin Fido's thinking.

The only reason he gave for Anne not being the penperson is that he felt the spelling and grammar in the diary were too sloppy for Anne--that it was beneath her abilities. So, he opted for Anne being the author and Mike being the penman---the exact opposite of what Barrett said in his secret affidavit.

But it's clear from his post that Martin only had access to the 'professional' typed report on Liverpool laundries that Anne had created for Feldman. So this left a false impression. Had he seen the misspellings and grammatical errors in Anne's private conversation he might have had second thoughts.

The rest of your post is just the same half-baked grandstanding. As if you're going to convince me that what I'm saying isn't entirely valid.

Your own theory has Anne "enabling" Barrett by typing up his bogus notes and backdating them to August 1991 and going along with the Devereux deception, etc. etc.

You then ridiculously dismiss this as of no importance by leaning on Anne's own explanation that she wanted a "professional" presentation [for Mike's stolen goods!!]

It's beyond ridiculous.

You couldn't make it up - except that Palmer just did. Did Anne have no fear of what Mike might do if she had succeeded in destroying it instead?

And here I thought you BELIEVED Little Caroline's story of Anne and Mike wrestling for the diary on the kitchen floor?

She may or might not have feared for her life, but if the story is true, she certainly had a greater fear that Barrett would damage both their reputations by trying to publish this malarky.

Of course, as someone pointed out, only a week or so later Anne assured Doreen that the diary would be kept securely in a safe in case the house burnt down.

Sounds again like someone who couldn't keep her stories straight...or very inconsistent and conflicted....but hey...you once met her....you can read her like a book....!

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm genuinely struggling to believe that the question was asked in good faith. To have asked it in good faith would have required someone in 2025 to have lived an entire lifetime with no awareness of dated diaries; and to imply the same might be true of someone in 1992 would have required that someone to have lived an entire lifetime with no awareness of dated diaries. It is a facile position to take simply to try to get around an impossible detail in the tale of the 1891 diary.

Yes, I am literally crying in the corner. With my old friend, laughter.

You've replied to a quote by Caz about "research" but I didn't mention research.

The question was:

How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?

Can we have your answer?

Is it supposed to be that "everyone" in 1992 knew this? If so, can we have some empirical evidence to support such an outrageous and obviously false claim.

To be clear, the question is not whether Mike had an "awareness of dated diaries". The question is whether he knew that such diaries existed in the late 19th century, in circumstances where they didn't exist prior to 1812. Do you want to now address the actual question that I've asked you? Ike?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ike,

I'm struggling to think of what 'research' Mike would have needed to do, to check anything he wanted to know about Victorian diaries, when he'd just been on the blower to Bookfinders and asked them to obtain one for him.

If they didn't have the answers, Mike was ringing the wrong number.

And the answer would have been yes, Victorian diaries can indeed have printed dates on every page.

Or was Martin Earl totally gobsmacked and incredulous when a supplier came up with one for 1891?

The irony is that, to my untrained eye, having seen both the red diary and the Maybrick diary 'in the flesh', the little one with printed dates does look the more modern of the two. Perhaps it did to Mike's untrained eye too, and helped to reassure him about the one he had already promised Doreen.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm struggling too, Caz, to think of what 'research' Mike would have needed to do, to check anything he wanted to know about Victorian diaries. It was, I agree, an odd suggestion of Ike's.

The actual question that needs answering is: "How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?"

Ike has ducked it again (although he's tacitly admitted that he hasn't got a clue) so I'm wondering if you fancy having a go at it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please tell me you were joking?

No, I mean, literally, please tell me you were joking?

What sort of sad anorak - surrounded by a lifetime of dated diaries - does not simply assume that dated diaries existed in 1888? And - if he stopped long enough to imagine they may not have been - fails either to do some research to check or else fails to make his request for one unequivocally clear?

Quite apart from the inanity of even suggesting some sad anorak might have thought this a possibility, there could be in no sense a moment when Barrett would not have sought to clarify it if he genuinely thought it was a possibility. Given his objective, and given that he was asking in 1992, he would have had to have never seen a dated diary in his life to be labouring under the assumption that dated diaries might not have existed in 1888 (or any other year you choose to name).

I think your suggestion is facile in the extreme. It's as facile as suggesting that Mike Barrett died without ever hearing about the internet.

I didn't respond to your original suggestion because I did not believe that you believed it possible. Now I know you did and I'm stunned.

Of course I'm not joking. Are you joking?

Are you saying Mike would have assumed (wrongly) that pre-printed diaries existed in 1591, 1691 and 1791 simply because they existed in 1991? Is that seriously your argument?

You must be having an absolute laugh. Can you really be saying that Mike thought that everything in 1888 was the same as in 1988? So, in his mind, if there were printed diaries in 1988 there were also printed diaries in 1888?

Do you even realize how ludicrous this is? It matters not if he'd seen "a dated diary in his life". The point is that he might well not have known that dated diaries existed in the 19th century. It's entirely possible that he viewed an 1891 diary as being like a 1791 diary.

And as I've demonstrated, with evidence, there were plenty of nineteenth century diaries with not a single date on them, either inside or on the cover.

What empirical evidence have you produced to support a single thing you've said in this entire debate? None, that's how much.

[caz]

More musical chairs played to the tune of They All Loved Jack.

Who is to say that Anne even knew about Mike's phone call to faraway Oxford until the phone bill showed up?

She didn't need to know that, but Palmer is surely not suggesting that she had no idea, by the middle of March 1992, that he would be trying to obtain something suitable to house Maybrick's undated thoughts on certain nights during 1888 and 1889? If she knew that much, but no more, was she not bothered enough to ask him where he had been or who he had called and how he was getting on? It seems almost as unbelievable as Mike not using the tongue in his head to ask Martin Earl more questions during that first phone call if he was planning a fake Victorian diary but was so pig ignorant on the subject.

And who is to say that Anne approved of his shenanigans? According to your own theory, Anne didn't want it published. I agree. I even tend to agree with your belief that Anne and Mike fought on the kitchen floor. I can't wrap my mind around Little Caroline just making it up out of the blue.

You can't approve or disapprove until you know what your spouse is up to and how he is going about it.

But then we return to the erratic behavior of enablers who enable troublesome and violent alcoholics.

No, Palmer is the one returning to his life experience of one or two examples, as if they all act in the same erratic manner, like cartoon characters.

In Martin Fido's view--which was explained to you within this very hour---Barrett took Anne's piece of fiction, behind her back, and created the artifact. That wouldn't necessitate Anne guiding Mike's purchases of raw materials. So, your objection is irrelevant.

My objection is 'irrelevant' because of a 'view' Martin Fido had, that Mike was the 'manipulative' one, who acted behind his wife's back and created the artifact? How does that work when it's clearly not Mike's handwriting in the artifact, and Palmer believes it was Anne who did the manipulating and the handwriting? Wouldn't that tend to make Martin Fido's view irrelevant?

No ducks in a row quite yet then for Palmer.

I don't think Martin was the fool you evidently think him to have been for making this suggestion. I think he was probably about 90% correct, only--if the handwriting is Anne's---which looks to me to be a good possibility---Barrett eventually harangued her into writing it out, too, and she only did so because she believed (in her own words) that people in London would be smart enough to see the diary for what it was and 'send Mike packing.' That and Mike not taking no for an answer once he got an idea in his head.

Oh dear. The mental gymnastics needed, to make Anne do what Palmer wants her to have done, while claiming that Martin Fido got it nearly right. Martin evidently didn't consider Anne to have been so afraid of Mike's violent abuse that she would have copied out the 63 pages herself, but only on the assumption that he would be sent packing by the people in London - to arrive home and violently abuse her again for muffing it. You couldn't make it up - except that Palmer just did. Did Anne have no fear of what Mike might do if she had succeeded in destroying it instead?

But Anne was mistaken. The Londoners DID take it seriously. And she was trapped.

Rubbish. Mike brought the 'artifact' back home with him. Doreen didn't even take the photocopy she had suggested doing in an earlier letter. Anne didn't have to pay for Mike's train fare to London again with it in early June. She could also have called Doreen without Mike's knowledge and explained everything to her, if she was too scared of a beating to refuse him anything.

[Iconoclast]

I'm struggling to think of what 'research' Mike would have needed to do, to check anything he wanted to know about Victorian diaries, when he'd just been on the blower to Bookfinders and asked them to obtain one for him.

I'm genuinely struggling to believe that the question was asked in good faith. To have asked it in good faith would have required someone in 2025 to have lived an entire lifetime with no awareness of dated diaries; and to imply the same might be true of someone in 1992 would have required that someone to have lived an entire lifetime with no awareness of dated diaries. It is a facile position to take simply to try to get around an impossible detail in the tale of the 1891 diary.

Yes, I am literally crying in the corner. With my old friend, laughter.

[caz]

Hi Ike,

I'm struggling to think of what 'research' Mike would have needed to do, to check anything he wanted to know about Victorian diaries, when he'd just been on the blower to Bookfinders and asked them to obtain one for him.

If they didn't have the answers, Mike was ringing the wrong number.

And the answer would have been yes, Victorian diaries can indeed have printed dates on every page.

Or was Martin Earl totally gobsmacked and incredulous when a supplier came up with one for 1891?

The irony is that, to my untrained eye, having seen both the red diary and the Maybrick diary 'in the flesh', the little one with printed dates does look the more modern of the two. Perhaps it did to Mike's untrained eye too, and helped to reassure him about the one he had already promised Doreen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lombro2]

Of course Mike knew or could easily have guessed that there were diaries with printed dates in 1888—the same way he knew the diary could be used as an office journal for receipts and scrapbooking because it has stubs.

The same way he knew there are 50 year old serial killer rookies.

Mike knows everything.

[Iconoclast]

But what if Mike wasn't aware that printed diaries existed in 1888?
After all, commercially pre-printed diaries didn't even exist before 1812. How was Mike supposed to know that bit of obscure historical trivia? If he'd been after a 1788 diary, it definitely wouldn't have printed dates so, if he'd been offered one from 1791, asking if it had printed dates would have been a daft question.
And my question is serious. Ike hasn't answered it, so maybe you'll have a crack at it: How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?

Please tell me you were joking?

No, I mean, literally, please tell me you were joking?

What sort of sad anorak - surrounded by a lifetime of dated diaries - does not simply assume that dated diaries existed in 1888? And - if he stopped long enough to imagine they may not have been - fails either to do some research to check or else fails to make his request for one unequivocally clear?

Quite apart from the inanity of even suggesting some sad anorak might have thought this a possibility, there could be in no sense a moment when Barrett would not have sought to clarify it if he genuinely thought it was a possibility. Given his objective, and given that he was asking in 1992, he would have had to have never seen a dated diary in his life to be labouring under the assumption that dated diaries might not have existed in 1888 (or any other year you choose to name).

I think your suggestion is facile in the extreme. It's as facile as suggesting that Mike Barrett died without ever hearing about the internet.

I didn't respond to your original suggestion because I did not believe that you believed it possible. Now I know you did and I'm stunned.