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

[Iconoclast]

Herlock - I don't know if this helps, but I had a look in the archives (a forbidden practice in these parts) and the last time Ike was pontificating about the 'Y' on the cassette tape (which occurred during the same exchange that supposedly had the '50/50' comment) was on the 'Incontrovertible' thread on 8-22-2023 at 7:02 a.m.

At that time, Ike made the following comment: "PS Before you ask again, I don't have the original tape for the "Y" moment - and have had to rely on what Seth noted for his own records."

This sounds as if Ike never heard the tape in question and is just relying on someone else's notes.

Cheers.

Well, that saves me a lot of searching, then, doesn't it? My memory was faulty ("Hold the front page!").

Still, this creates a problem because the wider and quite summary provided by Seth does not appear on any of the November 1994 tapes that I have access to (all the ones every one now has access to) and listened to so far. This makes me think there must be more tapes but for whatever reason they are not yet digitised. People are busy, I understand, and there's shedloads of material. Nevertheless, Seth's summary came from somewhere so I now need to see if I can locate where that is.

[rjpalmer]

Herlock - I don't know if this helps, but I had a look in the archives (a forbidden practice in these parts) and the last time Ike was pontificating about the 'Y' on the cassette tape (which occurred during the same exchange that supposedly had the '50/50' comment) was on the 'Incontrovertible' thread on 8-22-2023 at 7:02 a.m.

At that time, Ike made the following comment: "PS Before you ask again, I don't have the original tape for the "Y" moment - and have had to rely on what Seth noted for his own records."

This sounds as if Ike never heard the tape in question and is just relying on someone else's notes.

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the record, I have quoted Seth Linder who, presumably, based his summary and quotations on what he had heard (perhaps on the original recording?). I wouldn't wish to imply in any way that Seth would have not been scrupulously accurate, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do so either.

If it transpires that I can't find it, I will have to ask him if he recalls how he sourced it. After twenty-plus years, I would understand if he isn't immediately able to recall (nor if he doesn't have the time or inclination to find the actual answer).

It's not a war and it's not a Reith lecture. It's a discussion forum where not everything can realistically be researched to the nth degree. Life (for those of us who have one) often gets in the way and prevents us from spending hours reassuring ourselves that everything we say here is 100% correct. If you feel that you have consistently hit 100% over your many years on this forum, I'm sure you'll be keen to let us know.

Ike, I have absolutely no idea whether a Seth Linder would have been scrupulously accurate. The problem is that the tapes I've listened to are of very poor quality which makes interpreting them very difficult. Unless Seth Linder was in possession of much better copies or had much better hearing than I do, he must surely have been capable of making a mistake. For all I know, he wrote a note to himself wondering if the transcript had been written "fifty fifty" and then later confused himself into thinking Barrett had said this on the tape. I really don't know but I've already provided a possible interpretation for the "fifty fifty" comment whereby Barrett was saying that he and his wife were fifty-fifty responsible for the entire diary, not just the writing of the manuscript. That would be consistent with everything else he said.

I've continued on to listen to the recording on November 6, 1994 and I believe I can hear at 40:24 Gray asking "Have you got samples of your handwriting that you can give me?" to which Barrett replies "Anne wrote it". Then on the next tape, marked as November 8 1994 but which appears to have been recorded on November 7, 1994, I think I can hear at about the half an hour mark Barrett saying, "Anne actually wrote the manuscript" and "Anne wrote the f*cking diary".

So Barrett seems consistent time after time - on every single tape between 4th and 7th November in fact - in saying that Anne wrote the manuscript and I can't see him seriously having said to Gray that he wrote half of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we live in the real world momentarily, we have Mike Barrett needing a genuine Victorian document in March 1992 because he'd promised to take one to London to show Doreen Montgomery. He's creating a hoax and he's got a fish on a hook, all fine so far. He orders a book with at least twenty blank pages in mid-March. Tight, but still fine. By late March the clock has ticked too far and all he's got is a small red 1891 diary (but it least it had some blank pages!) so all he can do is postpone his arrangement with London. Well, that's what we would all do ...

... but not Mike Barrett. O no. He just nips along to a handy auction at O&L on March 31 and finds a document he can use (even if it is Edwardian according to the date stamp).

He and Anne then take a couple of days to mull over the whole handwriting thing (whilst the linseed oil is drying and completely disappearing), and then on April 2, they set to work.

What would we all do at this point, living in the real world?

Would we write and write and write and write right up until April 12 (our eleven magical days) leaving it to the very last minute before completing it, or would we - aware that it was taking so long to write out 63 pages (less than 6 a day on average, but still so demanding!) - scrap most of the doggerel and the sections which were planned to be crossed-out, and thereby produce, say, a forty-page 'diary' in around six or seven days?

Why push it so far to the end of those mythical eleven days when timings were so tight?

It's almost like it's all just a stupid fantasy of Mike Barrett's which has essentially no bearing whatsoever on what actually happened in the early days of April 1992 as he pored over James Maybrick's scrapbook when he should have been doing some concrete research into it.

I don't find hypothetical arguments about what we would do if we were forging a diary very helpful, Ike.

Everyone would do it differently. Most of us would never even dream of it.

But I just don't see what the problem is with someone abandoning Plan A and moving to Plan B. Nor do I see what is being suggested as having happened in this case as being in any way miraculous.

Lots of projects get completed by the skin of the teeth, in the nick of time, with moments to spare, often with a sprinkling of good fortune. That's just life.

Mind you, I am surprised that you have time to post about all this. Have you given up looking for the "fifty fifty" exchange?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock - I received the following private message.

"I was looking at Inside Story and found this interesting snippet on page 209 of the authors' interview with Anne Graham:

"She can't recall whether her failed attempt to destroy the diary happened before or after Barrett first took the diary to show to Doreen Montgomery but presumes it was afterwards, as she confidently expected Montgomery to throw the diary out".

Yet we've just been treated to a letter Doreen Montgomery sent to Sally Evemy on 22 April 1992, wherein a chirpy' and 'friendly' Anne told Doreen that she was taken precautions so the diary wouldn't be lost from theft or fire.

The claim Anne made to the 'Inside' authors appears to be the total opposite of the truth, in view of what she actually said at the time to Doreen. So much so that one can probably call it a lie!

I hasten to add that Keith Skinner didn't have Doreen's letter to Sally of 22nd April 1992 at the time Anne was interviewed in preparation for Inside Story, so a challenge wasn't possible. Anne wouldn't even have known that letter existed.

Anne 'MI-5' Graham obviously couldn't keep her story straight. I always had her down as the weakest link in the scam.

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

You haven't exactly helped me out, Ike. I've ended up listening to more than two hours of audio only to discover that I'd been given duff information. We still seem to be no nearer to finding this exchange. And having told me categorically yesterday that you'd heard the tape yourself, you're now not even sure of this. It's not exactly a watertight case you're making, is it?

For the record, I have quoted Seth Linder who, presumably, based his summary and quotations on what he had heard (perhaps on the original recording?). I wouldn't wish to imply in any way that Seth would have not been scrupulously accurate, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do so either.

If it transpires that I can't find it, I will have to ask him if he recalls how he sourced it. After twenty-plus years, I would understand if he isn't immediately able to recall (nor if he doesn't have the time or inclination to find the actual answer).

It's not a war and it's not a Reith lecture. It's a discussion forum where not everything can realistically be researched to the nth degree. Life (for those of us who have one) often gets in the way and prevents us from spending hours reassuring ourselves that everything we say here is 100% correct. If you feel that you have consistently hit 100% over your many years on this forum, I'm sure you'll be keen to let us know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because I'm a human (unlike some) and I err. I'm sorry if you have so much higher standards than everyone else. My mistake was to attempt to help you out but your ingratitude is off the scale - once again I put it to you that such ingratitude would not be tolerated in 'real life'.

If I find it, great - I must have actually heard it. If I don't, then perhaps it's just a bad memory on my part. I'm not going to be losing any sleep about an honest mistake (if mistake it was). We're not in a courtroom here (though some posters act like we are).

You haven't exactly helped me out, Ike. I've ended up listening to more than two hours of audio only to discover that I'd been given duff information. We still seem to be no nearer to finding this exchange. And having told me categorically yesterday that you'd heard the tape yourself, you're now not even sure of this. It's not exactly a watertight case you're making, is it?

[Iconoclast]

... how was a prospective forger going to obtain the paper that was vital for the success of a plan without leaving some sort of trail?

If we live in the real world momentarily, we have Mike Barrett needing a genuine Victorian document in March 1992 because he'd promised to take one to London to show Doreen Montgomery. He's creating a hoax and he's got a fish on a hook, all fine so far. He orders a book with at least twenty blank pages in mid-March. Tight, but still fine. By late March the clock has ticked too far and all he's got is a small red 1891 diary (but it least it had some blank pages!) so all he can do is postpone his arrangement with London. Well, that's what we would all do ...

... but not Mike Barrett. O no. He just nips along to a handy auction at O&L on March 31 and finds a document he can use (even if it is Edwardian according to the date stamp).

He and Anne then take a couple of days to mull over the whole handwriting thing (whilst the linseed oil is drying and completely disappearing), and then on April 2, they set to work.

What would we all do at this point, living in the real world?

Would we write and write and write and write right up until April 12 (our eleven magical days) leaving it to the very last minute before completing it, or would we - aware that it was taking so long to write out 63 pages (less than 6 a day on average, but still so demanding!) - scrap most of the doggerel and the sections which were planned to be crossed-out, and thereby produce, say, a forty-page 'diary' in around six or seven days?

Why push it so far to the end of those mythical eleven days when timings were so tight?

It's almost like it's all just a stupid fantasy of Mike Barrett's which has essentially no bearing whatsoever on what actually happened in the early days of April 1992 as he pored over James Maybrick's scrapbook when he should have been doing some concrete research into it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock says the forger wants or wanted his forgery authenticated.

No hit, Herlock!

Caz did you a favour. That’s what fair and gracious people do.

So if fifty-fifty is there, is anyone going to admit that something they threw at the diary didn’t stick?

Hi Lombro,

Just so you understand what's going on - because I wouldn't want you to be in a state of constant bewilderment - my response to Ike was not that "fifty-fifty" isn't there but that it has been misunderstood and misinterpreted. That's why I wanted to listen to the tape myself but Ike seems to be having trouble locating it. The issue is not so much whether "fifty fifty" was said - although it does need to be proved - but what was actually meant by it.

As for "the forger", what I said was that I'd be surprised if any decent forger (i.e. one worth their salt) has ever existed who didn't want their forgery to be authenticated as genuine. Seems uncontroversial to me.

[Iconoclast]

But here we are, Ike, nearly 24 hours later and you still haven't answered my question: "Is the recording available to listen to, please?"

As you scramble desperately to find it, it seems you have no idea whether it is or is not available.

You told me in #466: "I have heard the tape" and confirmed that Barrett does say 'it's fifty-fifty'. Yet. now, you say you're not even sure it's audible! How is that possible if you already heard it?

Because I'm a human (unlike some) and I err. I'm sorry if you have so much higher standards than everyone else. My mistake was to attempt to help you out but your ingratitude is off the scale - once again I put it to you that such ingratitude would not be tolerated in 'real life'.

If I find it, great - I must have actually heard it. If I don't, then perhaps it's just a bad memory on my part. I'm not going to be losing any sleep about an honest mistake (if mistake it was). We're not in a courtroom here (though some posters act like we are).

[Geddy2112]

Yes it is Geddy

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

So in short is the diary a fake or not?

Yes it is Geddy

[Herlock Sholmes]

In my post #466, I clarified that Seth Kinder had said November 5, 1994 and I added that my memory was that it was November 4, 1994.

In your post #468, you quoted my post #466 and asked: "Is the recording available to listen to, please?".

In my post #469, I gave you the link which took you to this post:



The information you had to go on was clearly stated - either November 5 (Seth Linder's stated link) or November 4 (my recollected alternative). You ask "What else was I supposed to do?". Well, given the information to hand, I would have suggested that you listen to one or both of those recordings which - interestingly - is what I believe you did so I must have been very clear indeed so not sure where your confusion lay. Now, you also say that you didn't find the "fifty-fifty" comment in either. As a kindness to you, I am currently sitting here listening to the one and a half hour recording on November 5, 1994, because you said you couldn't make anything out. Hopefully I won't have to sit here too long and miss my tea. Hopefully it won't be a crappy copy of a copy and the critical bit be inaudible.

I don't know what your expectation was, but I have to say I feel I fulfilled it to the best of my knowledge.

But here we are, Ike, nearly 24 hours later and you still haven't answered my question: "Is the recording available to listen to, please?"

As you scramble desperately to find it, it seems you have no idea whether it is or is not available.

You told me in #466: "I have heard the tape" and confirmed that Barrett does say 'it's fifty-fifty'. Yet. now, you say you're not even sure it's audible! How is that possible if you already heard it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to the script, dear Herlock, what Mike did ask for made it patently 'obvious' what he was up to. Apparently he could not have made it much more obvious if he'd requested a diary that would be suitable for his wife to create a bogus confession by Jack the Ripper.

Had Mike used anything he had obtained as a result of the advert, to fake such a document, it would have been yet another case of "Be careful what you wish for" when he 'flagged to the seller' precisely what he'd been up to, by having a bestseller published in October 1993, based on what he - Michael Barrett - had been thankful to receive in the post in March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

Are you saying that Martin Earl realized in March 1992 that Michael Barrett was wanting to create a fake Jack the Ripper diary?

There's always risk in any criminal venture, but even today, how many people would know what the Jack the Ripper diary looks like? Surely, if you're calculating risk, there's a really good chance that the seller of an old Victorian diary would never have known it was being used as the Jack the Ripper diary. And to the extent they ever did come forward (which claims could be disputed) hopefully the royalties have already been spent. That contrasts with the owner of a stolen diary of Jack the Ripper who is very likely to have been interested once a book about a recently discovered Jack the Ripper diary is published.

If you're saying there was a weak link in the chain by which there was a trail leading to Martin Earl (assuming the Barretts were the forgers), I would agree with you but how was a prospective forger going to obtain the paper that was vital for the success of a plan without leaving some sort of trail? There had to be a calculated risk, surely. And the proof of the pudding is that not a single person knew about Martin Earl until Barrett provided the clue in his 1995 affidavit, and it then took, what, ten years for Keith Skinner to track down a copy of the advertisement? Not such a bad gamble, one might think.

One thing you didn't respond to, Caz, is my question to Ike, which I repeat: "I have to ask you why he could possibly have wanted a diary from 1880 to 1890 of any size and colour as long as it was entirely blank or had a certain number of blank pages. Any thoughts?"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure I can see any significant difference, Herlock, considering the argument is the same either way: whether he 'wanted' or 'expected' the diary to be looked at and authenticated, your forger would surely have appreciated that this could only happen at all if it was subjected to testing, and if he wanted it to happen 'as soon as possible', he would need that testing to be conducted 'as soon as possible'.

Love,

Caz
X

Really Caz? You genuinely can't see the massive difference between wanting something to happen and expecting that it will happen?

Don't you think that everyone who plays the lottery wants to win millions of pounds? But expecting it to happen? That is surely very different. I play the lottery every week in the hope that I win but I expect it never to happen.