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

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Yes, to answer the first part of your question, a diary containing authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders was precisely what Barrett asked for.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that it wasn’t?

'Precisely', Herlock? What is your definition of that word?

Are you claiming that the advert read:

'A diary containing authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders'?

My understanding of events was that Barrett didn't "order" the 1891 diary. Rather it was offered to him, sight unseen, because the supplier couldn't source one from the 1880s and it was the only one available. So it was the 1891 diary or nothing.

Mike did "order" the 1891 diary - quite literally - or Martin Earl would not have sent it to him. It was located, fully described to Mike, ordered by him and sent to his home address within just a few days of the advert appearing, so he could have waited to see if a more suitable diary would turn up, or put in a second request, specifying a minimum page size and no printed dates for example. Instead, he went ahead and ordered this 'too small' diary, which was not only three years too late for Maybrick's first entry, but had the days/dates printed on every tiny page.

When he saw it - assuming he was the forger - he must then have realized that the paper couldn't be made scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders but only because it had printed dates on it.

He would have known this when Martin Earl fully described the item over the phone, as he always did with any item located, because there was no point in ordering anything from a supplier and getting it sent to the customer if it didn't fully suit their requirements. Did Mike not bother to listen to the description? If it was only described as a diary for 1891, surely he'd have asked for more information than that, given the impossible year. Or didn't he care by late March, because his original pressing need - whatever that had been - had diminished or been resolved?

Absent that, it seems to me, and I'm not sure how you can possibly dispute it, the wording of the request for a diary from the decade of the Ripper murders containing blank pages is consistent with an attempt to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders.

Surely?

That's not what I'm disputing, Herlock. While the precise wording of the advert appears on the surface to be consistent with an attempt by Mike to obtain something with the potential to become Jack the Ripper's diary, there is also a lot wrong with the advert, if it had been worded for the purpose of faking Maybrick's diary, which would not have been conducive to finding anything to fit the bill.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lombro2]

So watch, shawl and dairy all fakes. Cross is innocent... what's next?

You can alway go to the Carrie Brown boards and discuss that. That case also has a Ripper, and affidavits and a businessman and an immigrant and maybe a “fake” artifact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The great news for you, RJ, is that Herlock has researched this for almost ten minutes and he has discovered that the affidavit signed by Mike Barrett on January 5, 1995 was never actually read by him and certainly not written by him - it was all from the fertile mind of Alan Gray - so you don't need to ask questions about it or worry about whether linseed oil would have warped the cover because Alan Gray pretty much just made it all up.

According to Herlock, that is ...

PS We can therefore skip the bit in his affidavit where Mike explains how he "made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife" and go back to believing one of my personal favourite Mike moments, the bit where he explains away the kidney shape as occurring when Anne dropped an actual kidney on the inside cover of the book! Now, give Herlock a few minutes research inside his head and I'm sure he'll come back to us and confirm that that little gem was also made up by Alan Gray and Mike just repeated it for funzies.

Ike, I can't fathom why you've decided to misrepresent what I said to Roger of all people who isn't going to fall for it for one second.

You posted a letter yourself from Gray to Linder which stated that Barrett's statements were "read to" him. Which is exactly what I said likely happened. Why do you think Gray didn't tell Linder that Barrett read them himself or wrote them, if that's what had happened?

You also posted a summary of a claim by Barrett that he signed his affidavit while drunk, which I can well believe.

So everything I've said about the the way the affidavit was created is supported by the available evidence.

Nowhere have I said that it was "all from the fertile mind of Alan Gray". In fact I already told you this in an earlier post. I'm sure Gray was doing his very best to tell the story as Barrett told it to him but that needed him to understand what Barrett meant when he used ambiguous terms such as "writing" the affidavit which could include drafting it, typing it or doing the manuscript. It also needed him to understand the chronology, but if Barrett's own dates were out of kilter due to poor memory he had no chance.

[Iconoclast]

But at least you now concede that perhaps it suggests Barrett wasn't there at the time. Thank you.

Take the win - there won't be many ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

There's seldom anything new in Diaryland, just the same tired 'stock' arguments repetitively regurgitated by the combatants, but a few months back Jon Menges uploaded, for the first time, images of the suspicious pattern of staining on the diary's inside cover.

This was something entirely new, but not one commentator (other than me) showed any interest in these stains, which I find a bit odd. What do you make of them?

Barrett claimed he tried to remove a stamp or mark of some sort, showing the photograph album dated to around 1909, but of course the Diary believers will simply argue that Barrett knew of the stains and exploited this detail in his secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit. They will also stick to a hard-nosed and literal interpretation of the Barrett/Gray affidavit when it states that Mike soaked the 'whole' cover, when it is just (in my opinion) a figure of speech.

I'm not sure that helps them, though. The pattern of staining is not consistent with an accidental spill. There is no splash pattern, for instance, and no pattern of where a bottle or can of oil upended; it appears that the oily substance was deliberately applied while the photo album was open and flat. Based on my experiments, it is also clear that something was rubbed on the oil after it was allowed to soak into the papers---so vigorously that it wore away part of the end paper in the upper left corner, exactly where one might expect to find a name or some other identifying feature. The second pattern of oil, in the center of the endpaper, looks like the oil was deliberately dribbled from above. Again, this hardly looks like what one would expect to see from an accidental spill.

Can you come up with any innocent explanation for these strange patterns?

Here is Barrett's description.

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out."

My experiments also showed that the claim that linseed oil would emit a strong odor is the usual poppycock of people who seldom if ever test any of their dogmatic and unlettered pronouncements. I used a new, pure bottle of linseed oil/flaxseed oil and there was no discernible odor.

I even heated, for a short time, the experimental book cover in an oven, and I noticed that the oil pattern spread out and enlarged when heat was applied--which could be consistent with the patterns on the inside cover. I am particularly interested in the double outline of the 'kidney' shape because it is quite similar to the pattern that appeared when I reheated my own book cover. What I assume happened is that the oil, as it heated up, began to become fluid again, and then further spread into the paper fibers.



What do you make of it, if anything?

Hi Roger,

I remember seeing a number of posts saying that applying linseed oil to the diary would have created a smell lasting for days or weeks, so it is certainly interesting to know from your experiment that there might not have been any smell at all.

I'm thinking that anyone who isn't concerned that a large number of pages have been ripped out from the photograph album also isn't going to be concerned that something appears to have been removed from the inside cover.

Like you say, it could be argued that Barrett wove a story around those marks but I certainly can't see anything implausible about that part of the affidavit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure it matters too much either way but - yes - I will concur that Barrett sitting there like he died three weeks ago would not in my book be classed as dictation.



Good lad. You know it makes sense.



I haven't ignored it at all - I just haven't had cause to address it yet.



Well, if you permit me the licence that you evidently afford yourself in spades, it may have something to do with our not having every interaction between Mike Chuckle and Alan Chuckle either recorded or available to hear. For all we can ever know now, there was a recording made and it has since either been lost or not made public. I know I don't have it but maybe someone does. To apply a little more of your licence, perhaps we might imagine that that recording was too incriminating and therefore has been suppressed from public consumption. Who knows?



See above, but perhaps it does suggest that Barrett wasn't there. Their recordings were primarily in Barrett's house(s) as far as I can recall, unless they were travelling somewhere. If Barrett wasn't in attendance at the creation of his January 5, 1995 affidavit, I'm really not sure where to go from there regarding his role in any mooted hoax.

It probably doesn't matter now anyway if Kosminski has been given the win and top spot on the podium, as it were ...

What on earth will I do to fill my days now???

Your claim that you haven't had "cause" to address the absence of a recording of the creation of Barrett's Jan 5th affidavit is surprising because I did ask you about it yesterday in my #537.

But at least you now concede that perhaps it suggests Barrett wasn't there at the time. Thank you.

[Iconoclast]

I'm afraid I can't agree, R.D.

Now, there's a surprise!

Only the inside of the front cover is damaged. The outside of the cover is not, nor the binding nor the edges of the papers. The damage occurred when the photo album was open and flat, which wouldn't be the case if the book was in storage.

I think that goes without saying.

Also, enlargements of the damage are consistent with an oily substance. It doesn't look like water damage; it looks like oil (if I recall, Jon Menges thought the same thing), but I'm more than willing to hear the opinions of those who have seen the album up close, such as James Johnston.

Well, it is one of the great tragedies in this case that I have not yet seen the darn scrapbook for myself, but I am willing to engage in the debate around whether it is oil or not which caused the damage. Indeed, I'd happily accept that it was oil - it certainly looks like it (though I am no oilist despite being a fervent supporter of 'Saudi Arabia United' as many non-NUFC fans have renamed the club). The question is (assuming it's oil), why????

I think it's safe to say that Orsam (God rest his soul in retirement) and his unctuous acolytes would say that it was the handiwork of one Michael Barrett, but let us consider our options here ...

Is it possible that everything Michael Barrett is accused of doing with his tin of Castrol GTX could equally be applied to James Maybrick? Without developing the theory any further right now, is there any action that Michael Barrett could have taken that it would not have made equal sense for James Maybrick to take?

I'm thinking whatever might have identified the scrapbook as being owned by Maybrick & Co., Cotton Merchants, for example?

Obviously I don't know. I wasn't there in 1888, and neither was anyone else despite RJ's chronically advancing age, but all we need to understand is whether Barrett could have done something with the scrapbook that Maybrick could not. If Maybrick could do everything Barrett did then the discussion over the oil is unresolvable and we should go back to discussing whether it is fair of Saudi Arabia to win the right to host the 2034 World Cup and then (afterwards) clarify that there'd be no Tennants 70/- on sale throughout the tournament, nor indeed any other alcoholic beverages, prompting one UK newspaper this morning to carry the wonderful headline, "A Game of No Halves". Genius!

[Observer]

It's as undeniable as the FM on Kelly's wall.

It is indeed Mr Palmer. A line of thought going through the minds of Iconoclast's many Dear Readers, as we speak.

[rjpalmer]

Could Maybrick have depicted the prostrate figure of Eddowes, as a tease so to speak?

It's as undeniable as the FM on Kelly's wall.

[Observer]

This Maybrick fella, he's leaving clues all over the place. What a bloke.

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

I couldn't figure out those dark marks until Jon Menges showed me the full photograph, but that's the edge of the blue/black leather wrapped around the cover. The oil has soaked so deeply into the endpaper that the paper was become partially translucent, exposing the edge of the leather underneath where it is glued to the underside of the front cover.

The cover itself is made out of some kind of pasteboard, and the very dark brown spot is (I think) this board peeking through because the endpaper is almost completely worn away from that small patch.

At least that's my interpretation.

Your idea of a sticker being pulled off is an interesting one; I was thinking an ink stamp may have been rubbed off, but I see no reason your explanation can't be true.

Cheers.

Yes I can see now, the label I referred to could be due to the fact that the paper covering the cover has worn away down to the actual cover of the diary. I wonder why it has left a rectangular shape though? Secondly, can you see the figure I mentioned? Could Maybrick have depicted the prostrate figure of Eddowes, as a tease so to speak?

Regards

[rjpalmer]

Mike explains how he "made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife" and go back to believing one of my personal favourite Mike moments, the bit where he explains away the kidney shape as occurring when Anne dropped an actual kidney on the inside cover of the book

I suspect that the 'kidney' shape is just misdirection by the hoaxer.

The real aim was to remove whatever mark or stamp was in the upper left corner but doing that and nothing else would make it stick out like a sore thumb.

The kidney-shape and other splatters were added, not very artistically or convincingly, to direct attention away from the relevant damage.

[rjpalmer]

is that the blue edge of the label still remaining?

Hi Observer,

I couldn't figure out those dark marks until Jon Menges showed me the full photograph, but that's the edge of the blue/black leather wrapped around the cover. The oil has soaked so deeply into the endpaper that the paper was become partially translucent, exposing the edge of the leather underneath where it is glued to the underside of the front cover.

The cover itself is made out of some kind of pasteboard, and the very dark brown spot is (I think) this board peeking through because the endpaper is almost completely worn away from that small patch.

At least that's my interpretation.

Your idea of a sticker being pulled off is an interesting one; I was thinking an ink stamp may have been rubbed off, but I see no reason your explanation can't be true.

Cheers.

[Observer]

But if you look very closely at the brown stain where the "label" has been, I can definitely see a prostrate human figure lying with the arms nearest the top of the cover. The legs are akimbo, and it looks as if the head has trails of blood running from it. Eddowes?

[rjpalmer]

This does not look like an acute spillage of liquid, but rather a case of chronic water damage from a very slow... drip...drip...drip...drip...drip.... etc... drip... drip...drip...

Hi R. D.

Thanks for your comments but let me draw your attention to the thin staining I have marked with red arrows in the image below, especially the long, thin one at the bottom.

Does this look consistent with a slow drip drip drip drip?

To me, it looks like a swirling pattern as oil is being dribbled onto the cover while the person's hand is moving over the page.

The darkness of the stain and lack of buckling is also consistent with oil and not water.

Cheers.