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

[Herlock Sholmes]

A 'decoy' (good word) would only need to be the equivalent of a Victorian document with at least twenty blank pages. Which is - interestingly - what he got.

Would you care to explain why a "decoy" would "only need to be the equivalent of a Victorian document with at least twenty blank pages"?

Why would blank pages be useful in any way for this purpose?

And is it your case that, say, a Victorian rent book with 20 blank pages would have been a suitable "decoy" for Jack the Ripper's diary?

Who is supposed to be falling for this "decoy", incidentally? A blind person? Or do they need to be dumb as well as blind?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The word 'diary' in an advert is not ambiguous. We all know what we think of. We think someone is seeking or selling a 'diary', a book with 365 days in to write stuff at the appropriate time or to remind us of stuff coming up.

Mike Barrett therefore wanted the same as what we all think of when we hear the word 'diary'.

To comply with the Barrett Hoax theory, he needed to ask for a 'notebook' or a 'document' not a 'diary' or he needed to seek a diary from 1880 to 1888.

The clues are all there in the advert.

Will you stop saying what "we all know" about diaries? It's absolutely untrue. It's not even true of modern diaries and it's certainly not true of historical diaries. I mean, diaries with printed dates in them didn't even exist before 1812, yet people were keeping diaries long before this.

For all we know, Mike thought that printed diaries didn't exist before, say, 1912. It's not exactly common knowledge that John Letts started selling the first pre-printed commercial diary in 1812.

So, Ike, would there be any problem in someone accepting a 1791 diary to create a fake 1788 diary? Or a 1691 diary to create a fake 1688 diary? Because those diaries couldn't possibly contain printed dates, could they?

Please answer these questions, and don't fudge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the answer is clearly NOT to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts. That could not be clearer regardless of how you try to take us on a journey to the Moon and back. Do you ever stop and think, "Why do I keep trying to find some obscure reality whereby a guy wanting to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts from 1888 before he so famously died in 1889 seeks a diary from 1889 or even 1890 and then accepts one from 1891?".

Get back to counting angels on pinheads, Herlock. Your pedantic approach to all things Maybrick is as embarrassing as Yabs crying his or her eyes out like a baby because they asked for a red pen and they got a red pen.

Barrett's ad was not particularly ambiguous but sitting on the head of a pin pretending you're one of the angels, it's amazing how much ambiguity you've managed to inject into the entire tale.

Once again, Ike, as you seem to be having comprehension difficulties, Caz has already confirmed that an 1891 diary could have been used to, in your words, "create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts". The exact same must be true of an 1889 or 1890 diary. You haven't challenged Caz about this. Why not? Why don't you take it up with Caz?

As I've also said to you before, it is entirely possible that the actual "hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts" is contained within a 20th century photograph album.

As to that, Ike, has it never struck you as curious that the claim in Mike's affidavit is that he used an album which contained photographs which "were all to do with the 1914/1918 1st World War"? Does that not, in fact, conclusively prove that in Mike's mind it was entirely possible to create a fake 1888 Ripper diary using a book dated after 1888? After all, if he was lying, he could have said that the album contained photographs of Victorian gentlemen. But he didn't do that. He dated the album to long after the death of Maybrick.

It's such a simple concept that an 1889, 1890 or 1891 diary could be used to create a fake 1888 diary that I refuse to believe you can't grasp it and I can only assume that you're pretending not to be able to understand it because you fully realize the consequences for your daft argument if you were to admit it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if he wouldn't, I would certainly have had a red pen and a large bridge in London to sell him. All he had to say was, "By blank, do you mean it does not have dates on every page, Mr. Earl?". It's an obvious question for a guy seeking to host a record of the thoughts of a man who had died in 1889, wouldn't you say? Or do you buy into HS's notion that Mike was just totally blindsided that he didn't think to ask? (Pedant alert: he probably didn't use the term 'blindsided'.)



Polite reminder: the claims of a known liar cannot be used as evidence in building an argument. There is no evidence that there was a date at the front of the scrapbook and there is no evidence that it was Mike Barrett (or anyone associated with him) who removed the front pages of it.

What may be an "obvious" question to you in 2025, with perfect hindsight and 20 years to think about it, may not have been an "obvious" question to someone having to think fast and react immediately during a brief telephone call, especially if they know that the person they are speaking to can't answer any questions about the diary, not having seen it.

If, as seems likely, Mike had been told that nearly all the pages of the diary were blank, it seems entirely understandable that he didn't question this but decided on the spot to take the diary.

As I've said to you many times, Ike, the Victorian diary Mike was being offered was the only one available. It was that or nothing. Even if Mike had reservations, he could easily have thought it was worth a gamble. Say "yes" and get the diary sent to hIm as soon as possible so he could start work immediately. Evidence of 1891 could hopefully be cut out. Perhaps pages could be trimmed. Who knows? Certainly not Earl, and Mike wasn't going to be able to find out unless he had the diary in front of him.

It really isn't all that difficult.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle, Yabs.

We can do this Dance of the Possible forever if you want, it won't alter the fact that Mike Barrett wanted an 1889 or 1890 diary and accepted an 1891 one. Nor will it alter the fact that neither the supplier nor Martin Earl had any reason to think there might be a need to clarify if there were dates on every page but that there was a world of reasons for Mike Barrett to do so if he was intending to write a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts into it. The supplier's ignorance of Mike's intent and Martin Earl's ignorance of Mike's intent does not therefore become - under any circumstances, however obscure to entertain - Mike's failure to remember his intent.

And if I ordered a pen as ambiguously as your fictional idiot did, I'd be too embarrassed to send it back as I hate it when people call me a complete ******* twat. Maybe you'd care somewhat less than I?

Will you ever say anything accurate relating to this case, Ike?

"Mike Barrett wanted an 1889.or 1890 diary and accepted an 1890 one".

Where has that come from? He wanted a diary from 1880 to 1890. Why is reality not good enough for you that you have to change the facts to something you like better?

Only a few posts ago you seemed to accept that we can't know how the diary was described to Mike over the phone, but now you're back to claiming to know what must have been said! Please try and make your mind up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wouldn't put it past HS if he couldn't think of any other way to avoid saying, "Yep, I was wrong".

He said Keith Skinner didn't say something when we can all see that he did, so HS has to find another way to be right so he shifts my point on to the supplier not saying X about Y to Z when my point was simply to say he was jolly well wrong to say that KS did not say what KS most obviously did say.

Obviously, the words weren't exactly the same, Your Honour, so Keith clearly did NOT say what it's rather blindingly obvious to everyone who doesn't live in Pedantville he clearly meant. But let's talk about what the supplier did or didn't say instead because that will give me a route out of the psychological nightmare I experience when I realise I've been caught with my pants down!

The only person making inaccurate statements is you, Ike. For I never said that Keith Skinner didn't say something which he actually did say. You have gloriously misunderstood a post I made, taking it as a criticism of Skinner which it never was. Please stop and think for a moment and use your critical faculties to work out what I was actually saying in my original post.

You are wrong. Re-read what has been written.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if Keith Skinner would feel I was teasing over insignificant trivia if he happened to notice that you had sent the pedant police 'round because he hadn't quite phrased something the way you seemed to feel he should have phrased it.

Look, I'm not interested in your counting angels on pinheads or your arguing over me auntie's gonads - it's just something we have all now noticed you do to avoid saying, "Oops, I was wrong. Mea culpa".

Your arguments become more compelling if people feel you could handle being in error. You clearly can't handle it so you have to subtly change the point so that it all looks as though everything is going to plan (as Putin loved to say until not even Putin could bring himself to believe it).

You were caught with your pants down, man. Just own it. Even Rj in his late 90s knows when he's dropped a clanger.

Once again, Ike, I find myself with literally no idea what you're talking about.

I can only assume that you've grasped entirely the wrong end of the stick and think I was accusing Keith Skinner of misdescribing the diary or not noticing the printed dates or something like that, and that it was your solemn duty to leap to his defence.

No, that wasn"t it. All I was saying was that Keith didn't use the word "printed" in respect of the dates, so that the supplier might easily also not have used that word. You seem to have misunderstood what was a very simple and limited statement, not to mention an accurate one.

What you think I've got wrong, or why you think there is any mea culpa involved, I will have to leave to you and your analyst.

[Iconoclast]

If Barrett intended to forge a diary why wouldn’t he naturally think, I need to find a blank diary- before realising in hindsight that he needed to finetune his search to get what he wanted?

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t your own theory that Barrett needed a diary to use as a decoy?
if so, why would an 1891 or even one dated from 1880 be of use to use as a decoy for the 1888-89 real deal because the “genuine” one had blank pages at the back? He would still have fallen into the trap of each page being dated so useless for the purpose of a decoy.

A 'decoy' (good word) would only need to be the equivalent of a Victorian document with at least twenty blank pages. Which is - interestingly - what he got.

[Yabs]

The word 'diary' in an advert is not ambiguous. We all know what we think of. We think someone is seeking or selling a 'diary', a book with 365 days in to write stuff at the appropriate time or to remind us of stuff coming up.

Mike Barrett therefore wanted the same as what we all think of when we hear the word 'diary'.

To comply with the Barrett Hoax theory, he needed to ask for a 'notebook' or a 'document' not a 'diary' or he needed to seek a diary from 1880 to 1888.

The clues are all there in the advert.

If Barrett intended to forge a diary why wouldn’t he naturally think, I need to find a blank diary- before realising in hindsight that he needed to finetune his search to get what he wanted?

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t your own theory that Barrett needed a diary to use as a decoy?
if so, why would an 1891 or even one dated from 1880 be of use to use as a decoy for the 1888-89 real deal because the “genuine” one had blank pages at the back? He would still have fallen into the trap of each page being dated so useless for the purpose of a decoy.

[Iconoclast]

Oh of course it’s stupid on the part of the fictional idiot and I’m sure the man you consider a genuine idiot (Mike Barrett) felt the same way when he realised blank can mean dated and unwritten and not fully blank pages like those recently used to forge the hitler diaries.

The word 'diary' in an advert is not ambiguous. We all know what we think of. We think someone is seeking or selling a 'diary', a book with 365 days in to write stuff at the appropriate time or to remind us of stuff coming up.

Mike Barrett therefore wanted the same as what we all think of when we hear the word 'diary'.

To comply with the Barrett Hoax theory, he needed to ask for a 'notebook' or a 'document' not a 'diary' or he needed to seek a diary from 1880 to 1888.

The clues are all there in the advert.

[Yabs]

And if I ordered a pen as ambiguously as your fictional idiot did, I'd be too embarrassed to send it back as I hate it when people call me a complete ******* twat. Maybe you'd care somewhat less than I?

Oh of course it’s stupid on the part of the fictional idiot and I’m sure the man you consider a genuine idiot (Mike Barrett) felt the same way when he realised blank can mean dated and unwritten and not fully blank pages like those recently used to forge the hitler diaries.

[Iconoclast]

A question which, it has to be said, answers itself.

And the answer is clearly NOT to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts. That could not be clearer regardless of how you try to take us on a journey to the Moon and back. Do you ever stop and think, "Why do I keep trying to find some obscure reality whereby a guy wanting to create a hoaxed record of James Maybrick's thoughts from 1888 before he so famously died in 1889 seeks a diary from 1889 or even 1890 and then accepts one from 1891?".

Get back to counting angels on pinheads, Herlock. Your pedantic approach to all things Maybrick is as embarrassing as Yabs crying his or her eyes out like a baby because they asked for a red pen and they got a red pen.

Barrett's ad was not particularly ambiguous but sitting on the head of a pin pretending you're one of the angels, it's amazing how much ambiguity you've managed to inject into the entire tale.

[Iconoclast]

Also.. would Barrett ask if the pages are dated if being told they are blank as requested?

Well, if he wouldn't, I would certainly have had a red pen and a large bridge in London to sell him. All he had to say was, "By blank, do you mean it does not have dates on every page, Mr. Earl?". It's an obvious question for a guy seeking to host a record of the thoughts of a man who had died in 1889, wouldn't you say? Or do you buy into HS's notion that Mike was just totally blindsided that he didn't think to ask? (Pedant alert: he probably didn't use the term 'blindsided'.)

it’s not like he wasn’t prepared to make adjustments and remove dates/pages from the front of the book.

Polite reminder: the claims of a known liar cannot be used as evidence in building an argument. There is no evidence that there was a date at the front of the scrapbook and there is no evidence that it was Mike Barrett (or anyone associated with him) who removed the front pages of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I couldn't agree with you more, RJ. I've said my piece too. Whether it's counting angels on the head of a pin or wondering if me auntie's gonads are actually testicles, none of it provides us with any helpful movement towards answers or - God forbid - the truth.

I would note further though that claiming X could have done E, J, M, R, T, and V to achieve Y is simply an alphabet soup of contrivance and implausibility.

Mike Barrett could have gone to the Moon and back to source his 'hoaxed' scrapbook, we'll just never know either way with any certainty.

Just saying.

That's exactly what I've been saying all along, Ike. We can only speculate as to what Mike was told about the 1891 diary, so the fact that he agreed to purchase it takes us nowhere. It was Caz, with you following in her jetstream, who seemed to think that Mike's acceptance of that diary meant that we could positively rule out the idea that Mike wanted a Victorian diary as part of a forgery plot. But it seems that reality has finally struck. So now we're back where we started, with the question of why Mike was seeking a genuine Victorian diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages during March 1992. A question which, it has to be said, answers itself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He obviously means “carbon-dated” “at 1891 throughout.” Ha ha.

Now it makes sense! Uh… No. 1891 only works for Jacob Levy as a death bed confession.

And it still doesn’t explain why Mike, assuming he was confused or ill-informed, didn’t reject it on sight when it arrived.

If by "reject" you mean "return", Martin Earl's Terms and Conditions explain why Mike couldn't return the red diary but was legally obligated to pay for it.