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

[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.

[c.d.]

So in short is the diary a fake or not?

Patience, Getty. Patience. You have to allow time for people to weigh the evidence and put forth their arguments. I mean this will only be post #493. Let's see where it goes.

c.d.

[Lombro2]

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?

[caz]

In a candid moment, Dr. B apparently told Chittenden (I say apparently because it is based on Chittenden's reporting, and we don't have a direct quote that I'm aware of) that the diary's ink had been applied about 2-3 years before August 1992. Baxendale was clearly more cautious in his initial report to Smith and Harrison.

He was 'clearly more cautious'? Isn't that the understatement of the century? He went from considering it 'likely' that the ink was applied 'since 1945', based on not knowing that nigrosine had been in general use in writing inks since the 1870s, to [if Palmer relies on Chittenden's reporting] throwing all caution to the wind and settling on since 'about' 1989 or 1990 - miraculously in line with the books Mike and Anne are meant to have consulted for their funny little forgery, and also with the year 1990, later supplied by Mike himself in his affidavit. Still two years before the Awesome Auction of 31st March 1992, so even Baxendale might not have considered that 'likely'.

Dr. Nickell, having lost all faith in the analysis of his own team member, Rod McNeil, opted for the far simpler test conducted by Dr. B. This is when he said that the diary's ink must have been 'barely dry' in 1992.

'Barely dry' is still dry. Does something barely dry drip? Does ink even an hour old drip?

As a professional, Nickell ought to have known better than to indulge in this kind of supposedly hilarious hyperbole. Palmer can hardly blame anyone for picking Nickell up on it, when his funny little 'barely dry' quip has been repeated so often by Barrett hoax believers that it has become part of their own flat-pack furniture. I can't say I've ever seen Palmer disowning it before, but better late than never.

What Nickel knew is that paper fibers and iron gall ink permanently bond over time, and indeed, iron gall ink will eventually eat into the paper. The diary's ink and paper were observed to behave radically different than the exemplars that Dr. B knew were genuinely old. He--a document examiner for many years at the Home Office--knew then that something was seriously wrong, and confronted by Harrison, he would not back down from this knowledge.

A quote would be useful for Dr. B's claim to have used 'genuinely old' exemplars to determine that the diary ink's behaviour was 'radically different'.

We know that Nicholas Eastaugh used genuinely old reference material, as well as modern inks, for comparison purposes, and his main report was dated 2nd October 1992, three months after Baxendale's first report. Eastaugh later wrote that it had been 'clear' to him that 'the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference'.

[Geddy2112]

So in short is the diary a fake or not?

[Iconoclast]

Yes, but Ike, when I asked you if the recording was available, all you did was give me a link to 15 audio recordings without further comment and without identifying the one I should be listening to, let alone the time stamp. The only information I had to go on was your belief that it was November 4th. So that's the one I listened to. What else was I supposed to do?

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.

[caz]

I find your response very strange, Ike. If we assume he's looking to forge a Ripper diary, he's got to start and end somewhere, hasn't he? What's wrong with the decade in which the murders occurred? 1880 to 1889 is no problem for a Ripper diary and, if we try to put ourselves in Mike's head he might not have wanted to flag the year 1889 so finished at 1890. After all, he might have hoped to have been offered a number of choices. Perhaps he was really hoping to find an 1888 diary but felt if he asked for that it would be too obvious what he was up to.

Sure an 1899 diary might have been okay but why extend the range so far? You've got to bear in mind that he must have been hoping for a diary as close to 1888 as possible. Surely he wouldn't have known at the time that whoever he bought it from wasn't going to be able to find any from the 1880s.

So I find your objection a bit strange and a bit ironic considering your arguments about the 1891 diary. If Barrett had asked for a diary from 1880 to 1899 wouldn’t you have mocked the fact that he was interested in a diary from 10 years after Maybrick's death. So I truly can't see any other date range he could have chosen than 1888 to 1889 which would satisfy you but this would not only have unnecessarily limited his options but flagged to the seller something he might not have wanted to flag.

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?

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